DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI, INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DÍAZ LORETO ET AL. V. VENEZUELA JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 19, 2019 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) I. INTRODUCTION 1. This dissenting opinion is issued in relation to the judgment in reference, 1 owing to the provisions in its first operative paragraph2 with regard to the objection filed by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela3 concerning the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies established in the American Convention on Human Rights.4 2. For a better understanding of this discrepancy, it is necessary to reiterate and even expand what I have indicated in other separate opinions 5 in relation to compliance with this requirement addressing, successively, some preliminary and general considerations concerning the reasons that support this dissent, the relevant articles of the Convention, the regulatory provisions on this same matter and, lastly, the consequences of adopting an opinion that differs from the one described in this document. II. PRELIMINARY AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 3. The preliminary and general considerations concerning this case related to the function of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights6 and the role of the separate opinion. Hereinafter, the judgment. Hereafter, each time that the footnotes indicate “para.” or “paras.” it should understood that this refers to a paragraph or paragraphs of the judgment. 1 “To reject the preliminary objection filed by the State of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, pursuant to paragraphs 16 to 22 of this judgment.” 2 3 Hereinafter, the State. Hereinafter, the Convention. Hereafter, each time “Art.” o “Arts.” is indicated, it should be understood that this refers to an article or articles of the Convention. 4 Concurring opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018; Separate opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018; Concurring opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325; Concurring opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316; Concurring opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307; Dissenting opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Campesino Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299; Dissenting opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297; Dissenting opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Cruz Sánchez 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 Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, and Dissenting opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244. 5 6 Hereinafter, the IACtHR.