REASONED OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA-RAMÍREZ TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF XIMENES-LOPES V. BRAZIL OF JULY 4, 2006 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL RIGHTS 1. Throughout its ever growing and more comprehensive case law, the InterAmerican Court has addressed the assessment and identification of the rights and freedoms of individuals and group members, either as a group itself or as a community, as well as the obligations and duties of the State in certain specific hypothetic cases. Reference to the latter has served to largely refine the case law of the Court at the service of individual rights in a realistic scenario, including many different circumstances and multiple needs and expectations. 2. Universal rights and guarantees, which are of a basic nature and have been “thought” to reach everyone, should be complemented, aligned and lined up with the rights and guarantees exercised in relation to the members of a group, sector or specific community, that is to say, that they should be meaningful to some or many specific individuals, but not to all. This idea stems from the fact that behind the generic concept of human being as a member of a uniform society –seen as an abstract concept based on homogenous subjects- there may be a “case” or “cases” of human beings of flesh and blood, with distinct characteristics and particular demands. 3. It is indeed the task of the State –as it derives from its origin and justification- to preserve the rights of every person subject to its jurisdiction, which is a broad concept that for sure goes beyond territorial issues, in compliance with the actions and omissions that best serve to this protection in order to favor the enjoyment and exercise of the rights. To this respect, the State should undoubtedly avoid inequality and discrimination practices and provide a universal protection to the individuals who are subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of individual or group conditions that may leave them aside of the general protection or may impose on them –either de jure or de facto- additional levies or specific restrictions. 2. MEANS OF COMPENSATION 4. It is equally incumbent on the State to provide, when factual inequality places the right holder in a difficult situation – that may result in the absolute impossibility to exercise the rights and freedoms-, the means of correction, leveling, compensation and balancing that may allow the individual to have access to said rights, either under relative, conditional or imperfect circumstances that the State protection intends to redress. These means embody other reasonable, pertinent and efficient “protections” aimed at broadening the opportunities and enhancing the quality of life that, in turn, pave the way to the natural evolution of the individuals, instead of restricting or eliminating it under the guise of assistance and protection. 5. (Advantage or) disadvantage factors are many in number. Some derive from the particular conditions of the individual –like health, age or sex- others, from social circumstances –like indigenous, foreigner or inmate status-. The State is under a duty to speak out against said differences, weed out the source of discrimination and give adequate support to the individuals under undesirable conditions –from “cradle