- 2investigate, since the fact is said to have taken place in a hamlet with about a dozen houses and without eyewitnesses. 7) The Court has never ruled on the precise degree of certainty needed to declare that the State is responsible for a human rights violation. Nevertheless, in all the Court’s case law there is not one single case in which it has made this declaration when there has been a reasonable doubt about such responsibility and, in my opinion, there is more than a reasonable doubt in the instant case. 8) In addition, it should be pointed out that the State has continued to show interest in seeking those who disappeared during the armed conflict that took place from 1979 to 1992, and has created an institutional commission to seek disappeared children. 9) The alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention, which refers to a simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate fundamental rights, is worth examining. In the two cases cited, the Court said: “… habeas corpus would be the normal means of finding a person presumably detained by the authorities, of ascertaining whether he is legally detained and, given the case, of obtaining his liberty.” (Velásquez Rodríguez case. Ibid., para. 65 and Godínez Cruz case. Ibid., para. 68). 10) In the instant case, this recourse was filed on November 13, 1995; it was duly processed without achieving any result, and on March 14, 1996, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared that, in the case, since there was no evidence that the disappeared children were or had been held by the Army, this recourse would have no effect and was not appropriate, but rather it was a matter for the ordinary criminal jurisdiction. 11) Bearing in mind the circumstances of the case and, in particular, that the recourse was presented 13 years after the facts allegedly occurred, it appears that the Supreme Court’s decision was correct and that the fact that the recourse did not result in finding the Serrano Cruz children does not mean that Article 25 of the Convention has been violated. I therefore dissent from the operative paragraph which states this. 12) Regarding the alleged violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), I have dissented from the Court’s opinion, because this is based on the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention and there has been no such violation, as stated in the preceding paragraphs. 13) I consider that the right to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage cannot be inherited. Furthermore, I have dissented from all the operative paragraphs regarding reparations because, in my opinion, no violation of any human right within the Court’s jurisdiction has been committed in this case and, consequently, Article 63(1) of the Convention is not applicable. 14) Moreover, I would like to take this opportunity to put on record that I do not share the progressive expansion of the interpretation of the said provision which, in my opinion, only authorizes the Court to order measures leading to reparations in favor of victims whose rights have been violated and other persons who have