SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO-TRINDADE 1. I have voted in favor of the adoption of this judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. However, in this separate opinion, I wish to record the personal reflections that this judgment of the Court has prompted, owing to its particular gravity. Indeed, it is the first time in the history of the Inter-American Court that a massacre of this dimension has been submitted to its consideration. In this separate opinion, after making an initial distinction between the jurisdictional and the substantive issue of responsibility, I will focus on the content and scope of the principle of humanity, and then examine aggravated international responsibility, jus cogens in its broadest dimension, the existence of State crime, and the co-existence of the international responsibility of the State and the individual. Lastly, I will present my final observations. I. The Gravity of the Events 2. In the application in the Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre, submitted to the Court on July 31, 2002, by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the latter indicated, inter alia, that: "The [Plan de Sánchez] massacre was perpetrated in the context of a policy of genocide of the State of Guatemala carried out with the intention of totally or partially destroying the Mayan indigenous people. The violations were on such a scale that they represented massive and multiple violations of the American Convention on Human Rights. (...) The CEH [Historical Clarification Commission] recorded 626 massacres committed by State forces, principally the Army, supported by the paramilitary structure, during the armed conflict (...). 95% were perpetrated between 1978 and 1984 and, during this period, 90% were carried out in areas inhabited predominantly by the Mayan people. (...) Some of the principal characteristics of the massacres during the armed conflict in Guatemala were that they were carried out using acts of excessive cruelty aimed at the elimination of individuals or groups of individuals who had been previously identified as the objective of the military operations, and to incite terror as a mechanism of social control. (...) The massacres and land operations led to the extermination of complete Mayan communities, as well as the destruction of their homes, livestock, crops, and other elements of subsistence, so that, inter alia, the right to life of the Mayan people was violated, together with their right to ethnic or cultural identity, and the right to express and disseminate their culture. (...) (...) The Plan de Sánchez massacre occurred within the framework of a State strategy intended to destroy an ethnic group using military operations that led to the massacre of thousands of members of the Mayan indigenous people, the flight of the survivors, the destruction of their subsistence economies and, lastly, the intentional submission of thousands of Mayan indigenous people to living conditions that depended on the military structure." (...).1 3. Furthermore, in their brief with comments on the Commission’s application, submitted to the Court on September 27, 2002, the petitioners alleged, inter alia, that: 1 Paragraphs 3, 54-55, 63 and 129 of the application.