DISSENTING OPINION OF THE JUDGE CECILIA MEDINA-QUIROGA IN THE CASE OF LÓPEZ ALVAREZ V. HONDURAS 1 1. In general, I agree with the Court’s decision with regard to the violations to the human rights determined in the preceding judgment, except with regard to the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention 2. I do not see, in this case, any reason to declare that this Article has been violated. In fact, the paragraphs of the judgment that refer to it, numbers 137 through 139, are limited to citing jurisprudence of the Court without linking it to the facts of the case, as would have been necessary to support a violation of this stipulation. Therefore, I consider that in this case the declaration of a violation to Article 25 does not proceed. 3. I would like to insist in this Opinion that my position is not merely academic and formalistic. As I have stated on other occasions, the joint treatment of Articles 8 and 25 seems to suggest that the only norm of the Convention that enshrines the right “to the recourses” is that of Article 25 and that the only way to protect the rights of the Convention is through “recourses”. I think this is not so. The protection of the substantive rights of the American Convention necessarily requires the possibility to be heard before a court to determine rights or obligations or to decide on the innocence or guilt of an accused person, that is, it requires the right to establish actions against others. The processes that give place to these actions are not prompt and simple recourses that must be resolved in days and without greater processing. On the contrary, the period of time used by the State to conclude the processes will probably not be computed in days or months, but many times, in years, since a considerable period of time is required to make a decision in a trial on a substantive matter, either of a criminal or civil nature, because the parties must be given the possibility, inter alia, to recollect evidence, present it in trial, object that of the other party and give the court the possibility to carefully weigh all this in. Therefore, the term must be “reasonable”, which means that it can not be too long, but it can not be too short either. It is also probable that the majority of them will require of the consultancy of an expert in law, among other things, due to the complexity of the procedures. It is true then that to legally ensure the full and free exercise of human rights, the appeal of relief of Article 25 is not enough. 1 4. I consider that the preservation of the distinction between Articles 8 and 25 is of extreme importance.2 To not distinguish between these two stipulations distort the original objective of Article 25, in detriment of the victims. With this position, the Court does not give itself the opportunity to elaborate the concept and requisites of the appeal of relief, thus making the identification of which appeals of relief as such should exist in the domestic legal system of the States Concurring Opinión, Case of Gómez-Palomino, Judgment of November 22, 2005, para. 4. I reaffirm in this paragraph what I have said in mi Opinion of the Judgment of the Case of the 19 Tradesmen, and my Opinion in the Case of Gómez-Paquiyauri. 2