- 3practice of the forced disappearance of children and the elimination of their identity and name during this armed conflict.”1 (para. 16) 11. By accepting State voluntarism, the Court limited itself unduly and regressively,2 and unfortunately it did so in an important human rights case that represents a microcosm of one of the greatest tragedies suffered by the countries of Latin America in recent decades: the tragedy of the children who disappeared in the Salvadoran armed conflict. As I stated in my previous dissenting opinion in this case (judgment on preliminary objections), "(...) ironically, in the second operative paragraph of this judgment in the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, what has been transformed into a “continuing situation” by a decision of the majority of the members of the Court, is not the situation allegedly violating human rights that was submitted to the Court’s consideration and decision, but rather the continuing situation imposed by the State on the Court that prevents it from exercising its jurisdiction; namely, to examine and rule on the matter – which, in my opinion, is almost a juridical absurdity. It is well known that the history of juridical thought, and even human thought in general, does not make linear progress, but I sincerely hope that, in a temporal dimension, the second operative paragraph of this judgment of the Court is only a stumbling block that has to be overcome, a mishap on the long road that has to be traveled. In keeping with the Court’s recent case law, its judgment in the Trujillo Oroza case (supra), its abovementioned judgments on competence in the Constitutional Court and Ivcher Bronstein cases, and on preliminary objections in the Hilaire, Benjamin and Constantine cases, are also notable international advances in international case law in general and its legal grounds. The last two cases are today part of the history of human rights in Latin America, with widespread positive repercussions on other continents; moreover, they have created expectations of continued progress in the Court’s case law in the same direction.”3 (paras. 22 and 23). 12. The consequences of the Court’s decision in the previous judgment on preliminary objections in this case, extend to this judgment on merits and reparations. 1 For a report that reveals that human cruelty has no limits, or borders (since this practice occurred in internal armed conflicts in other countries also) cf. Asociación Pro-Búsqueda de Niños y Niñas Desaparecidos, El Día Más Esperado - Buscando a los Niños Desaparecidos de El Salvador, San Salvador, UCA Editores, 2001, pp. 11-324; Asociación Pro-Búsqueda de Niños y Niñas Desaparecidos, La Problemática de Niñas y Niños Desaparecidos como Consecuencia del Conflicto Armado Interno en El Salvador, San Salvador, APBNND, 1999, pp. 4-80; Asociación Pro-Búsqueda de Niños y Niñas Desaparecidos, La Paz en Construcción - Un Estudio sobre la Problemática de la Niñez Desaparecida por el Conflicto Armado en El Salvador, San Salvador, APBNND, [2002], pp. 3-75; Asociación Pro-Búsqueda de Niños y Niñas Desaparecidos, "En Búsqueda: Identidad - Justicia - Memoria", 4 Época - San Salvador (2003), pp. 3-15; and cf. Amnesty International, El Salvador - Dónde Están las Niñas y los Niños Desaparecidos? London/San Salvador, A.I., 2003, pp. 1-10. Cf. also: Office of the Ombudsman, Caso Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz (Informe de la Sra. Procuradora para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos sobre las Desapariciones Forzadas de las Niñas, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, Su Impunidad Actual y el Patrón de la Violencia en que Ocurrieron Tales Desapariciones), San Salvador, PDDH, 2004, pp. 1-169 (internal circulation). 2 Previously, for example, in Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia (judgment on merits of February 27, 2002), the Court considered the continued crime integrally, as a whole, as it should be – which meant, as I stated in my separate opinion in this case (paras. 2-19), that it is possible to overcome the contingencies of the classic principles of the law of treaties when there is awareness of this need; boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem. Thus the Court gave expression to the superior values that underlie the norms for the protection of human rights, shared by the whole international community (paras. 20-22). In addition, in its judgments on preliminary objections in the Hilaire case (and in the Benjamin and Constantine cases (2001), with regard to Trinidad and Tobago), the Inter-American Court considered rightly that, if it accepted the limitations filed by the States in their own terms in the instruments accepting its compulsory jurisdiction, this would deprive it of its powers and make the rights protected by the American Convention illusory (para. 93, and cf. para. 88). 3 Cf., e.g. A. Salado Osuna, Los Casos Peruanos ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Lima, Edit. Normas Legales, 2004, pp. 94-131.