CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA RAMÍREZ TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, OF AUGUST 2, 2008, ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT ON MERITS AND REPARATIONS IN THE CASE OF THE MIGUEL CASTRO CASTRO PRISON (PERU) 1. I present some personal considerations regarding the judgment of interpretation issued by the Inter-American Court with regard to the case of the Castro Castro Prison. The members of this tribunal adopted said judgment unanimously. In it –object of an extended and free deliberation—there is no different opinion. The unanimity covers all the operative paragraphs. 2. The present considerations obey to my purpose to respond to concerns and arguments presented to the Court within the context of a case that has generated debates and provoked different opinions. These arguments, from different sources, deserve attention. I avoid, as has been my habit, statements that could result inconsiderate or conflicting, as well as rhetorical expressions, inadequate in the ruling of a judge, who must be careful of both the content of his opinions as well as the manner in which they are expressed within the jurisdictional venue. The purpose of explaining my opinion regarding the judgment of interpretation has led me to extend myself in the examination of some matters and I have probably incurred in reiterations or in emphasis that could seem unnecessary. However, they are not. They derive from the wish to carefully analyze the opinions that have been stated to us, acknowledging their importance. 3. I presided over the Court for the effects of this interpretation because I was in charge of this duty when the judgment on merits was issued. I suggested that another judge be chosen to preside over the sessions related to the interpretation. My request is on the record in writing in this case’s dossier. The members of the Court considered it appropriate that I preside over these sessions. I obeyed their request. It should not go without saying that the person that presides over the Court –in any of the stages of a matter subject to trial—does not expect nor could they expect to “lead” the opinion of his colleagues, whose freedom he must be the first to respect and appreciate scrupulously. Therefore, I do not respond for the coincident points of view nor do I condemn the different ones. I limit myself to presenting my own. 4. I am aware of the responsibility the exercise of the jurisdictional duty implies, which has a special importance when it has an international scope. Thus the need to act carefully and with caution in all the aspects of the trial: both the processing and the instrumental decisions of the process, as well as the judgment and the statements of the judges in the exercise of their duties. It is not only about making justice, but also about avoiding, as much as possible, undesired consequences foreign to the merits of the judgment and its juridical scope. I consider that the Inter-American Court has sought to submit itself to these requirements of justice and pulchritude. 5. The members of a tribunal cannot ignore the circumstances in which the facts regarding which it issues a ruling occur, even when they are, in themselves, foreign to the case submitted to the jurisdictional body. The judges do not act within a bubble, foreign to the concerns of society. They must be respectful of the feelings and reasoning of those who intervene in a process, and even of those who do not participate formally in it but are attentive to their origin, process, and results. The