PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI, INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, CASE OF MUELLE FLORES V. PERU, JUDGMENT OF MARCH 6, 2019, (Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs). 1. I issue this partially dissenting opinion in relation to the Judgment in the above-mentioned 1 case because I disagree with the decisions set forth in Operative Paragraphs N° 2 2, 53 and 64, which, based on the provisions, among other norms 5, of Article 266 of the American Convention on Human Rights7, dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the Republic of Peru8 regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights9 and declare that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to social security and the right to property. 2. Certainly, given the importance of this matter and having regard to the reasons set forth in this opinion, I reiterate and supplement the comments I have made on other occasions. 10 Thus, after mentioning some prior considerations related to this opinion, I will address the reasons that explain 1 Hereinafter, the Judgment. “Dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the State regarding the alleged lack of competence ratione materiae and the direct justiciability of Article 26 of the Convention in the terms of paragraphs 33 to 37 of this Judgment.” 2 “The State is responsible for the violation of the right to social security, pursuant to Article 26 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 5, 8(1), 11(1), 25(1), 25(2)(c) and 1(1) thereof, as well as Article 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Oscar Muelle Flores, pursuant to paragraphs 170 to 208 of this Judgement.” 3 “The State is responsible for the violation of the right to private property recognized in Article 21(1) and 21(2), in relation to Articles 25(1), 25(2)(c), 26 and 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Oscar Muelle Flores, pursuant to paragraphs 212 to 218 of this Judgment.” 4 Hereinafter, whenever a provision is cited without specifying the corresponding legal instrument, it shall be understood as being from the American Convention on Human Rights. 5 “Progressive Development. The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, subject to available resources, by legislation or other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires.” 6 7 Hereinafter, the Convention. 8 Hereinafter, the State. 9 Hereinafter, the Court. Cf. Case of The Dismissed Employees of Petroperú, v. Peru, Judgment of November 23, 2017, Separate Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, Judgment of August 31, 2017, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi. 10