CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI,
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF THE PUNTA PIEDRA GARIFUNA COMMUNITY AND ITS MEMBERS
v. HONDURAS, JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 5, 2015
(Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs)
This opinion, which concurs with the judgment in this case, is issued because, although
the undersigned agrees with the reasons established in the judgment to reject the
preliminary objections filed by the State based on “failure to exhaust domestic
remedies” both “to ensure the use and enjoyment of the territory of the Punta Piedra
Garifuna community and its members,” 1 and “concerning the death of Félix Ordóñez
Suazo,” 2 he considers that there are additional reasons to adopt those decisions.
In addition, this concurring opinion is issued in order to place on record the
undersigned’s interpretation of the terminology used in operative paragraphs 4 and 8
of this judgment in relation to the State’s responsibility.
A. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies to ensure the use and enjoyment of
the territory of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community and its members.
Regarding the first preliminary objection filed by the State, it is worth indicating that
this was included in the State's briefs of March 25, August 17 and October 27, 2004;
that is, in the answering brief or brief with observations 3 on the initial petition dated
October 29, 2003, 4 and in other supplementary documents.
Therefore, in keeping with the opinions expressed in other separate opinions and
reiterated herein, 5 it can be affirmed that, although the presentation of the said
preliminary objection was filed by the State at the proper moment, it did not truly
constitute a preliminary objection to what had been alleged and described in the
petition.
In other words, the “administrative remedy to obtain payment of the compensation,”
which the State argued had not been previously exhausted, not only “was not a
suitable remedy for the community’s attempt to recover the occupied territory or to
claim compensation” 6 but, in addition, it did not respond to the allegations made in the
petition. Indeed, as regards compliance with the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic
remedies, the petition alleged that, based on the agreements reached with the State to
Operative paragraph 2.
Operative paragraph 3.
3
Hereinafter “the answering brief.”
4
Hereinafter “the petition.”
5
Dissenting opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Case of Galindo Cárdenas et al. v. Peru. Preliminary
objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 2, 2015. Series C. No. 301; Dissenting
opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Case of the Campesino Community of Santa Barbara v. Peru.
Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C. No. 299;
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objections,
merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C. No. 297; Dissenting Opinion of Judge
Eduardo Vio Grossi, Case of Cruz Sanchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and
costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No.292; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Gross, Case of
Liakat Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30,
2014. Series C. No. 276; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Case of Diaz Peña v. Venezuela.
Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244.
6
Para. 31. Hereinafter “para.” will indicated “paragraph of the judgment.”
1
2