CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI CASE OF GRANIER ET AL. (RADIO CARACAS TELEVISIÓN) V. VENEZUELA JUDGMENT OF JUNE 22, 2015 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) INTRODUCTION This concurring opinion1 is issued in relation to the judgment indicated above,2 to emphasize some aspects of it related to the Inter-American Democratic Charter and, in this regard, to judicial independence and, above all, freedom of thought and expression. A. THE INTER-AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC CHARTER The allusion made in the judgment to the Inter-American Democratic Charter3 has special significance because, of its legal nature, the obligation it establishes, and the role that corresponds to the Court in this regard. a. Legal nature 1. The Inter-American Democratic Charter is both a “declarative legal resolution of an international organization”4 and also an “authentic interpretation” of the treaties it refers to. The former, because it is a resolution adopted by the Special General Assembly5 of the Organization of American States.6 The latter, because it expresses the interpretation made by the Member States of that international organization, including the States Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights,7 of the provisions of its Art. 66(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights: “If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to have his dissenting or separate opinion attached to the judgment.” 1 Art. 24(3) of the Court’s Statute: “the decisions, judgments and opinions of the Court shall be delivered in public session, and the parties shall be given written notification thereof. In addition, the decisions, judgments and opinions shall be published, along with judges' individual votes and opinions and with such other data or background information that the Court may deem appropriate”; and Art. 65(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: “Any Judge who has taken part in the consideration of a case is entitled to append a separate reasoned opinion to the judgment, concurring or dissenting. These opinions shall be submitted within a time limit to be fixed by the President so that the other Judges may take cognizance thereof before notice of the judgment is served. Said opinions shall only refer to the issues covered in the judgment.” 2 Hereinafter, “the judgment.” 3 Paras. 53, 54 and 140 of the judgment. Another category of resolutions of international organizations includes those that are binding for their member States, because their constituent treaties explicitly establish this. In this case, the sources of law are the said treaties. It is worth added that all resolutions of international organizations are evidently compulsory for their organs. 4 5 Twenty-eighth special period of sessions held in Lima, Peru, September 11, 2001. 6 Hereinafter, “the OAS”. 7 Hereinafter, “the Convention.”