4 jurisdictional rulings in this regard, it has been debated whether the deprivation of life (by arbitrary or extrajudicial execution) is inseparably linked to disappearance, to the point that it is inherent in this offense, and forms part of it, so that the jurisdictional examination of disappearance involves the examination of the deprivation of life, which would involve simultaneous violations of Article 4 and 7 of the American Convention and would possibly extend the competence ratione temporis corresponding to arbitrary deprivation of life. 16. Evidently, many cases of disappearance culminate in the extrajudicial execution of the victim. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possibly – logically and ontologically – to detach the death from the disappearance and recognize the particularity of each, which calls for a separate and objective treatment. This separation in no way signifies reducing the punishment or encouraging impunity, in the same way that this does not happen when the penal system recognizes the existence of different types of results that pave the way for the concurrence of crimes, not their merging. 17. This is what the Court has understood in this judgment, which denies its jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the death of the victim and asserts this jurisdiction to examine the forced disappearance based on the abovementioned reasons. The Court noted and strongly condemned the fact that Mr. Portugal was arbitrarily deprived of his life, even though it was unable to declare this in the judgment, by applying Article 4 and emitting the corresponding formal condemnation, because, in the instant case, the Court did not have the authority to rule on this point. It would be erroneous to consider that the Court’s conclusion, which is in keeping with the provisions that governs its actions, produces impunity. Although this impunity has been suggested, it does not arise from the Court’s judgment, but from the date of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction; that is, from an act that is external to the decisions of the international jurisdiction. 18. Having established the foregoing, I leave to the future interpreter to reflect on the treatment that could be given to the facts relating to the mental integrity of the victim (Article 5(1) of the American Convention). Obviously, the deprivation of liberty can be differentiated from the violation of integrity, but it is also reasonable to suppose that the suffering of the victim of forced disappearance is maintained continuously (or of a continuing nature) while this extremely serious situation persists, with all the dangers, terror and stress that this implies. In this case, it would be possible to contemplate the existence of violations of Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention, while maintaining the conceptual separation between deprivation of liberty and the effect on integrity. 19. In the judgment to which this opinion is attached, the Inter-American Court noted the State’s obligation to adapt its domestic laws to the provisions of the American Convention, in order to prevent and punish conducts that violate those juridical rights, a duty that results from the respect and guarantee obligation contained in the said instrument. The Court also observed that the State’s obligation to define forced disappearance as a crime arises from the explicit mandate of the 1994 Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. It is pertinent – insofar as a convention-based obligation is claimed – that the State legislator adopt the definition of forced disappearance provided by international human rights law (and also that of torture, if applicable) to avoid disparities between the international provision, which is binding for the State, and the domestic definition of the crime. It is evidently possible for the latter to be expressed in more comprehensive terms than the former in order to favor the protection of human rights, but not that this protection is reduced by domestic definitions of crimes that contradict or do not correspond to the international definitions. Sergio García Ramírez, Judge