SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. I have concurred in my opinion with the Judgment rendered by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights in the Case of Blanco-Romero et al v. Venezuela. Furthermore, I feel I have to put on record, in this Separate Opinion, the personal thinking the instant Judgment rendered by the Court has prompted in me, particularly regarding the issues of the right to know the truth and the forms reparations may adopt, as I have done, concerning this second issue, in my previous Separate Opinions in the Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala (Judgment of November 25, 2003), and the Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre (Judgment on reparations of November 19, 2004). 2. In the instant Judgment, the Court has considered favorably the acknowledgment of international responsibility effected by the State (para. 63), while it has also realized the importance of the right to know the truth, in both its individual (as a means of reparation for the victims and their next of kin) and social (concerning the social fabric as a whole) dimensions. The individual dimension has been pointed out by the Court ever since its Judgments in the cases of Castillo-Páez versus Perú (of November 3, 1997, para. 90), Bámaca-Velásquez versus Guatemala (of November 25, 2000, merits, para. 201), Barrios Altos concerning Peru (of March 14, 2001, paras. 47-48), PaniaguaMorales et al versus Guatemala (of May 25, 2001, reparations, para. 200), VillagránMorales (“the Street Children”) et al versus Guatemala (of May 26, 2001, reparations, para. 100), Cantoral Benavides versus Perú (of December 3, 2001, reparations, para. 69), Bulacio versus Argentina (of September 18, 2003, para. 114), Molina-Theissen versus Guatemala (of July 3, 2004, reparations, paras. 80-81), and the GómezPaquiyauri brothers versus Peru (of July 8, 2004, paras. 229-230). 3. As from the Judgment on reparations in the memorable case of Bámaca Velásquez versus Guatemala (of February 22, 2002) ─a renowned case with such a great cultural density─ the Court went on to point out as well the social dimension (along with the individual one) of the right to know the truth, when determining that "Society has the right to know the truth regarding such crimes, so as to be capable of preventing them in the future" (para. 77). The Court reaffirmed such social dimension in its Judgments in the cases of TrujilloOroza versus Bolivia (of February 27, 2002, reparations, para. 114), Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala (of November 25, 2003, para. 274), Masacre de Plan de Sánchez concerning Guatemala (of September 19, 2004, reparations, para. 98), Carpio Nicolle et al versus Guatemala (of November 22, 2004, para. 128), Serrano-Cruz sisters versus El Salvador (of March 1, 2005, paras. 62 and 169), Huilca-Tecse versus Peru. (of March 3, 2005, paras. 107), Moiwana Community versus Suriname (of June 15, 2005, para. 204), Gutiérrez Soler versus Colombia (of September 12, 2005, para. 96), and Mapiripán Massacre regarding Colombia. (of September 15, 2005), para. 298). 4. In its Judgment (of July 5, 2004) in the Case of the 19 Tradesmen versus Colombia, the Court pointed out that the investigation of the events and the punishment of those responsible were measures benefiting not only the next of kin of the victims, but