CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI
WITH RESPECT TO THE ORDER OF
THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
OF NOVEMBER 22, 2011,
CASE OF SERVELLÓN GARCÍA ET AL. V. HONDURAS,
MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT.
Introduction.
The undersigned concurs with the present vote on the Order indicated in the title,
hereinafter the Order, on the understanding that, according to the relevant norms and
in light of the extensive lapse of time - which has been thus, more than prudent or
reasonable - since the pronouncement of the judgment in the present case, without
the State concerned having, in essence, complied, the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, hereinafter the Court, must make it known to the General Assembly of the
Organization of American States, hereinafter General Assembly of the OAS.
I.- Standards.
In effect, Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter the
Convention, establishes:
“To each regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of
American States the Court shall submit, for the Assembly’s consideration, a
report on its work during the previous year. It shall specify, in particular, the
cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments, making any pertinent
recommendations.”
For its part, Article 30 of the Statute of the Court, hereinafter the Statute, provides:
“Report to the OAS General Assembly.
The Court shall submit a report on its work of the previous year to each regular
session of the OAS General Assembly. It shall indicate those cases in which a
state has failed to comply with the Court’s ruling. It may also submit to the OAS
General Assembly proposals or recommendations on ways to improve the InterAmerican system of human rights, insofar as they concern the work of the
Court.”
As is evident, both provisions categorically enshrine an obligation of the Court, and not
a privilege; as such, the Court cannot - and certainly does not - avoid it. This
obligation is to submit a yearly report to the OAS General Assembly of the work done
by the Court in the previous period. The language employed in the two articles quoted
is meaningful in this regard, as it is imperative in nature. That is, it indicates that the
Court “shall submit” the aforementioned report to the General Assembly of the OAS.