DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI, INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, CASE OF THE PEASANT COMMUNITY OF SANTA BÁRBARA V. PERU JUDGMENT OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) INTRODUCTION This separate dissenting opinion 1 to the judgment indicated in the title, 2 is issued because the judgment rejected the preliminary objection regarding failure to comply with the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, contained in Article 46 of the American Convention on Human Rights, 3 filed by the Republic of Peru. 4 The grounds for this dissent are as follows: on the one hand, while the judgment considers that the objection raised by the State should be rejected on the grounds that it “would not be compatible with the partial acknowledgement of responsibility made in the instant case” 5 and, on the other hand, that in the remedies mentioned by the State in its briefs, “it does not specify why […] they would be, in its opinion, adequate, suitable and effective,” 6 in this document the view is that the petitioner did not comply with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies prior to lodging the petition and that the judgment, endorsing the work done by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 7 bases its decision on facts subsequent to this submission and the State’s corresponding response to it. The reasons for my disagreement with the judgment are explained below in relation to the preliminary considerations, based on which such reasons are formulated, to the applicable conventional rule, to the facts of the case relating to said rule and, finally, to the judgment, in relation to that objection. I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS The preliminary considerations are first related to the meaning and scope of this opinion and, secondly, to the procedural aspects within which it is formulated. 1 Art. 66(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights: “If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to have his dissenting or separate opinion attached to the judgment”; Art. 24(3) of the Statute of the Court: “The decisions, judgments and opinions of the Court shall be delivered in public session, and the parties shall be given written notification thereof. In addition, the decisions, judgments and opinions shall be published, along with judges' individual votes and opinions and with such other data or background information that the Court may deem appropriate”, and Art. 65(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: “Any Judge who has taken part in the consideration of a case is entitled to append a separate reasoned opinion to the judgment, concurring or dissenting. These opinions shall be submitted within a time limit to be fixed by the Presidency so that the other Judges may take cognizance thereof before notice of the judgment is served. Said opinions shall only refer to the issues covered in the judgment.” 2 Hereinafter the judgment. 3 Hereinafter the Convention. 4 Hereinafter the State. 5 Para. 45 of the judgment. Hereinafter, each time "para" is indicated, it shall be understood to refer to the judgment. 6 Para. 46. 7 Hereinafter the Commission.