CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE HUMBERTO ANTONIO SIERRA PORTO JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 14, 2019 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF RODRÍGUEZ REVOLORIO ET AL. VS. GUATEMALA I. Introduction 1. With the customary respect for the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Court" or "the Tribunal"), I submit this concurring opinion. The opinion relates to the discussion that exists in the Court on the analysis of cases involving violations of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (hereinafter "ESCR") on the basis of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention"). In particular, with regard to the present case, I will briefly reflect on what I consider to be an inconsistent and inadequate use that the Court has made of the principle of iura novit curia in its recent judgments involving social rights. In this sense, my reflections complement what I have already expressed in my opinions in the cases os Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador,1 Lagos del Campo v. Peru,2 Dismissed Workers of Petroperú v. Peru,3 San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela,4 Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile,5 Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala,6 and Muelle Flores v. Peru7 regarding the multiple logical, legal and practical problems resulting from the trend initiated by the majority since the judgment in Lagos del Campo v. Peru. II. Regarding the Court's inadequate use of the iura novit curia principle in recent judgments on ESCR issues 2. In my opinion in the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, I stated that it was imprudent to make use of the principle of iura novit curia to analyze the case and thus conclude that there was a violation of the right to job security on the basis of Article 26 of the Convention. My criterion was based on the fact that, although the inter-American judges can apply a norm that has not been alleged by the Commission or by the representatives, this principle cannot be invoked under any circumstance and without resorting to criteria of reasonableness and relevance. There will be cases in which a violation of a human right that was not alleged is manifest or in which the Commission and the representatives commit a serious oversight or error, so that it is necessary to resort to this principle in order to prevent a possible injustice. However, this principle should not be used to surprise a State with a violation that it did not foresee in the least and that it did not have the opportunity to remedy or Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298. 2 Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340. 3 Case of Dismissed Workers of Petroperú et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 358. 4 Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348. 5 Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349. 6 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359. 7 Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375. 1 50