CONCURRING OPINION CASE OF ESCUÉ-ZAPATA V. COLOMBIA I have concurred with my colleagues to approve, unanimously, the present Judgment in the Case of Escué-Zapata v. Colombia, but I think it is necessary to clarify my position regarding an issue that was considered in the deliberation of this case and during the last three years in several cases submitted to this Court. It refers to the application and interpretation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) and, thus, regarding the nature and reason for being of said rules. Chapter I of the American Convention (List of Duties) enumerates the duties of the States Parties to such instrument: Article 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) and Article 2 (Duty to Adopt the Provisions of the Domestic Law). They are general rules that cover all the rights protected in Chapter II (Civil and Political Rights). These protected rights have their own ontological nature, they protect individual legal interests, capable of being violated by the State Party by certain events that lead to the violation of Article 1(1) and, if applicable, Article 2, that are general rules, as I mentioned early. This is not the nature of Articles 8 and 25, that also have a separate ontological content, not of rules of general application of the Convention and thus, can be infringed by the State, together with other rights, in conjunction with, always, Article 1(1) that establishes the general obligation of States Parties to respect and guarantee the rights included in Chapter II of the Convention. 1 Article 1(1) of the Convention provides that: 1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. Article 8(1) points out: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. Whereas, Article 25 provides that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by 1 Cf. IACHR, Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71; IACHR, Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97; IACHR, Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Judgment of November 26, 2006. Series C No. 154; IACHR, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158.