SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI CASE OF PACHECO TERUEL ET AL. v. HONDURAS JUDGMENT OF APRIL 27, 2012 (Merits, reparations and costs) OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Introduction I issue this separate opinion1 in relation to the Judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, the former “the Judgment” and the latter “the Court”) in order to record expressly that, even though I support it and, in particular, the endorsement or approval it indicates of the friendly settlement agreement reached by the parties, dated February 28, 2012 (hereinafter “the Agreement”) (paras. 19 and 21), I do not agree with what it indicates regarding “[i]n section 6(d) “Mechanisms and Procedures” of the […] agreement, the parties asked the Court to preserve the confidentiality of the amounts of the compensation, expenses and costs established in the fifth operative paragraph of the agreement, for security reasons […]” and that “[b]ased on this request, and taking into account the reason for it, the Court will not record these amounts in this Judgment” (para. 131). The reasons for my disagreement in this regard consist in, on the one hand, that even though the parties presented the Agreement during the hearing of February 28, 2012 (para. 14), the Judgment does not include it as an annex and only describes it, omitting the said amounts (para. 17) and, on the other hand, that it indicates, however, that “the Court observes that, under the agreement, global amounts were decided, without establishing specific amounts for each victim or the way in which they would be distributed,” and that [c]onsequently, taking into consideration the willingness of the parties to reach the said agreement and the mechanism for implementing it, the Court finds that the amounts agreed for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses should be duly determined by the compensation and opportunities trust fund and distributed to the victims, injured parties in this case, (supra para. 132), as well as to the direct families of the 89 deceased inmates who authenticate their capacity as beneficiaries of this case”; concluding in its eleventh operative paragraph that “[t]he State (of Honduras, hereinafter “the State”) must pay the amounts established in the agreement as compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage and for reimbursement of costs and expenses, as appropriate, in the terms of paragraphs 131 to 142 of the Judgment.” Based on the foregoing, my discrepancy with the Judgment concerns the meaning and scope of the norms relating to friendly settlement agreements and the Court’s judgments, to the inclusion in the latter of the pertinent reparations and compensation and their execution, to the principle of transparency that must inspire them, to the rights of the injured party and of third parties recognized by them and, lastly, to the security reasons 1 Art. 66(2) of the American Convention: “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.