2 component of the reparations system is a result of this inevitable difference between what was and what may be. 2. Consideration of cultural specificity The Judgment on reparations referred to in this opinion takes into account how the fact that the victim and his closest relatives belonged to an indigenous group may influence the Court’s decision and determine the grounds on which reparations are ordered, and even their characteristics. In other cases – for example, Aloeboetoe et al. and the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community – the Court made progress in evaluating the rights linked to this ethnic factor, with its corresponding cultural heritage, from which specific rights or particular forms of rights which are generally observed, derive or could derive. The evaluation of such rights or the characteristics of the general rights, does not necessarily qualify the concept of human rights, establishing limitations and compartments that weaken individual protection. To the contrary, it judiciously expands the sphere of human rights, recognizes their inherent characteristics – which are above the common, non-derogable, radical traits of humankind – and extracts from all this the legal consequences which help to establish and guarantee the defense of the dignity of the human being, not only in abstract – within the species – but concretely – within a group, an indigenous ethnic group, a family, a people; in brief, it recognizes the individuality of the subject with his wide range of particularities and nuances. Thus, the transfer is made from the generic individual to the specific individual, who incarnates reality. In making this transfer, law is enhanced and rights are perfected. When referring to the obligation of the State and the right of individuals concerning the discovery, exhumation and delivery of the remains of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, the judgment has taken into consideration, on the one hand, the right of the next of kin of a person who has died to received his mortal remains, independently of any ethnic, religious, cultural consideration of a particular case. This is a universal, constant right. On the other hand, this same judgment of the Inter-American Court has considered the specific relevance that receiving, honoring and adequately burying these remains has for the Mayan culture, the Mam group, to which the victim and his next of kin belonged. There is no conflict between these rights, which are concentric circles or manifestations of one and the same legally protected right. This essential relationship between the rights does not lead to one being ignored – that linked to belonging to an indigenous ethnic group – because another is recognized – the universal right to receive the remains of a relative and bury them honorably. 3. Reparations to honor In my opinion, the decision to publish the chapter on proven facts and the operative paragraphs of the judgment in the official gazette and another newspaper with nationwide circulation is pertinent. The former relates to the formal character of the jurisdictional decision and the latter to the advisability that public opinion should learn about the conclusions and the meaning of the jurisdictional decision in this case, as it did – or could have – of the facts that constituted the violation. Thus, the