This opinion is also based on the conviction that respect for the inter-American legal system in the area of human rights, both substantive and procedural, entails the corresponding principle of legal certainty. In this sense, the Court’s actions in its search for justice through the law 4 must be as efficient and effective as possible in order to guarantee the enforcement of human rights or, as the case may be, their prompt reestablishment. Finally, I wish to reiterate that this document is offered in the hope that the Court will, in the future, modify its jurisprudence on the matter in accordance with its intrinsic nature, that is, as an auxiliary source of international law or as a means for determining the rules of law 5 and, consequently, not immutable, except in the case in which the respective judgment has been rendered. 6 It is worth noting that two of the operative paragraphs with which I disagree are related to the objection of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies 7 and three others are related to pretrial detention. 8 I. Prior exhaustion of domestic remedies Art. 2 of the Ibero-American Code of Judicial Ethics, XIII Ibero-American Judicial Summit, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, June 2006: “- The independent judge is one who, based on the Law in force, determines a fair decision, without any influence, either real or apparent, outside the Law.” 4 Art.38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: “1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. 2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.” 6 Art. 68: “1. The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. That part of a judgment that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country concerned in accordance with domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments against the State.” Art. 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: “The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.” 7 “1. To declare admissible the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to Groups 1 (Manfred Amrhein Pinto et al.) and 5 (Guillermo Rodríguez Silva and Martín Rojas Hernández); as well as with respect to Groups 2 (Rafael Rojas), file No. No. 099-0029291-042-PE; 7 (Miguel Mora Calvo), file No. 99-003994-0042-PE, and 8 (Damas Vega Atencio), files No. 99-000506-062-PE and No. 01-002231-0063-PE. It also declares admissible the objection with respect to the following persons of Group 3: Carlos Eduardo Yepes Cruz, Miguel Antonio Valverde Montoya, and Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga. All of the above, in the terms of paragraphs 39 to 56 of this judgment.” and “6. To dismiss the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to Groups 2 (Rafael Rojas Madrigal), files No. 99-000136-065-PE and 02-004656-0647-TP; 4 (Jorge Alberto Martínez Meléndez) files No. 03-000082-016-TP and No. 05-007495-0647-TP; 6 (Manuel Hernández Quesada), File No. 01203116-0305-PE and 7 (Miguel Mora Calvo), File No. 97-000061-301-PE, as well as in relation to the following persons of Group 3: (Enrique Archbold Jay and Luis Archbold Jay), file No. 02-000759-455-PE-2; all this in the terms of paragraphs 39 to 57 of this judgment.” 8 “11. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty contained in Articles 7(1), 7(3) and 7(5) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Group 4 (Jorge Martínez Meléndez), pursuant to paragraphs 350 to 369 of this judgment”; “20. This judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation” and “22. The State shall pay the amounts established in paragraphs 483, 490 and 497 of this judgment, as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and to reimburse costs and expenses, pursuant to the aforementioned paragraphs and the provisions of paragraphs 479 to 497 of this judgment”. 5 2