INDIVIDUAL CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI, INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF UZCATEGUI ET AL. v. VENEZUELA JUDGMENT OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2012 (Merits and Reparations) Introduction. 1.- I, the undersigned, issue this Individual Concurring Opinion in relation to the Judgment indicated in the title, hereinafter the Judgment, having regard to the fact that, although I support it, I believe it should also include the two proposals formulated during the respective debate which, nevertheless, were rejected by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, hereinafter the Court. I consider that these proposals are important for the strengthening the Court’s powers, for the legal security and certainty of its rulings, which are final and not subject to appeal, and for the effective and best possible protection of human rights. 2. - The first of these proposals was to include in the Judgment, among the Court’s considerations regarding reparations, the following paragraph: “H.-Provisional Measures. 314.- Having regard to the observations made on this aspect (supra paras.*) and given that the beneficiaries of the provisional measures ordered in this case are the beneficiaries of the measures of reparation ordered in the proceedings, those remain, as of now, without effect, and are replaced by the latter, which include not only the State’s general and permanent obligation to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention and to guarantee their full and free exercise to everyone subject to its jurisdiction, 1 but also the obligation to adopt, in compliance with this judgment, all the appropriate measures for the purpose of guaranteeing the injured parties the enjoyment of the infringed rights 2 as well as to avoid irreparable damage that could result or continue to result as a consequence of such violations.3 Having regard to the foregoing, the implementation and observance of the aforementioned obligations shall be subject to monitoring of compliance with judgment and no longer subject to provisional measures.” 3. - The second suggestion, therefore, was to incorporate the following as an operative paragraph of the Judgment: “315. - … 1 Article 1(1) of the Convention. 2 63(1) of the Convention. 3 Article 63 (2)