CONCURRING VOTE OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA-RAMÍREZ IN THE JUDGMENT ON REPARATIONS ENTERED BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASTILLO PÁEZ CASE 1. In the Judgment on the merits in the Castillo Páez case, invoked in this Judgment on reparations, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established that the Peru “is obliged to investigate the events that produced them [the violations of the American Convention]” and that even assuming “that internal difficulties might prevent the identification of the individuals responsible for crimes of this kind, the victim’s family still have the right to know what happened to him and […..] where his remains are located.” The Court further held that in addition to this duty to investigate “there is also the duty to prevent the commission of forced disappearances and to sanction those responsible for them.” The Judgment also held that “These obligations on Peru shall remain in force until such time as they have been fully performed” (Castillo Páez Case, Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 90). 2. In the present Judgment on reparations, the Court held that “effective investigation and punishment of those responsible for the events that prompted the instant case, as ordered by this Court is one reparation measure that those next-ofkin are due” (para. 70). It also reconfirmed its finding in the Judgment on the merits and stated that “the Amnesty Law enacted by Peru (Law No. 26.479) is one of the ‘internal difficulties that might prevent the identification of the individuals responsible for crimes of this kind’, since it obstructs investigation and access to the courts and prevents the victim’s next-of-kin from knowing the truth and receiving the reparations to which they are entitled.” (para. 105). To arrive at this finding, the Court analyzed Peru’s arguments concerning the amnesty laws issued in that country with respect to persons who participated in the fight against terrorism. In the same reparations judgment, after examining the applicability of articles 1(1) and 25 of the Convention on this matter, the Court reiterated that the State “has a duty to investigate the human rights violations and prosecute those responsible and thus avoid impunity.” (para. 107) which this Court had previously defined as “the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention,” a situation that the State must combat by all legal means at its disposal (Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Judgment of March 8, 1998, Series C No. 37, para. 133). Therefore, by a unanimous vote of its members, the Court decided that the State must investigate the facts and punish those responsible for them (operative paragraph 2). 3. The duty to investigate human rights violations and punish those responsible for them derives from the American Convention. The latter also provides that States