REASONED CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA RAMÍREZ TO THE JUDGMENT IN MACK CHANG V. GUATEMALA OF NOVEMBER 25, 2003 I. THE CASE LAW OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT AND THE MACK CHANG CASE 1. Since it began to exercise its contentious jurisdiction, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has had the opportunity to rule on violations of the right to life by extrajudicial executions committed by State agents. It is still a matter that this international Court has to consider, even though, in recent years, it has heard matters of a different nature that begin to outline a new jurisdictional trend with regard to which relevant judgments and significant advisory opinions have been delivered that establish the position of the inter-American jurisdiction on other rights, which are also embodied in the American Convention and even in other international treaties acceded to by the countries of our hemisphere, and which the Court is called upon to apply. 2. In all the cases mentioned above, using a case law developed over the course of four decades, this international Court has ruled on the right to life, the corresponding State obligations, the pertinent reparations, and among these, the obligation of the State to investigate, prosecute and convict those responsible. The latter constitutes what I have called the “obligation to provide criminal justice” (cf. in this respect, several studies included in my book, La jurisdicción internacional. Derechos humanos y justicia penal, Ed. Porrúa, Mexico, 2003, particularly, pages 202 and ff., 258 and ff., 315 and ff., 354 and ff.), deeply rooted in that case law and inherent in the “rule of law”; in other words, the supremacy of law in a democratic society, with national and international impact. In this way, impunity, which is a powerful stimulus for violating human rights, as well as a flagrant injustice that harms the whole of society, is combated. The fight against impunity is evidently no less relevant or urgent that satisfaction of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests of the victim, and constitutes a reference point for the future development of the system to protect human rights in all countries. 3. The Mack Chang case, decided in the judgment to which this separate concurring opinion is attached, forms part of this traditional trend, although with its own characteristics. The State itself considers it a “paradigmatic case,” which forms part of the legacy of an internal conflict “in which there was no legal system, nor any efficient and effective system for the administration of justice (para. 68). The development of the American democracies and the emerging culture with regard to human rights must abolish for ever the use of violence that eliminates lives, attacks freedom, and affects the integrity of all individuals. When this objective is achieved, the Inter-American Court will be in a position to dedicate itself almost exclusively to other issues, which characterize a different phase, as the European Court of Human Rights does today in most cases. 4. Any violation of the rights and freedoms of an individual merits censure, but the violation of the principal right – the right to life – on whose recognition and protection depend the continued existence and effectiveness of all the other rights, is particularly deplorable. Unlawful deprivation of life reveals the persistence of old authoritarian patterns that are the testimony of somber times during which the essential juridical rights were disdained for the sake of the alleged needs of public