REASONED AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ARTURO MARTÍNEZ GÁLVEZ As Judge ad hoc in the Maritza Urrutia case, deriving from an application submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the State of Guatemala, I would like to state the following: I. In the chapter of the judgment that assesses the evidence, the Court bases itself on the reports of the Historical Clarification Commission and the Inter-Diocesan Project for Recovery of the Historical Memory. However, I consider that these documents do not, in themselves, constitute evidence of the facts they relate, while acknowledging that the Court has granted them value as evidence in previous judgments. Moreover, the procedural act of the State’s acquiescence does not, in itself, accord them the category of probatory documents on which a judgment that is unfavorable to the defendant may be founded. II. With regard to the operative paragraphs of the judgment, I consider that the amounts to be paid for compensation are very high, bearing in mind that the State of Guatemala has a rather high budgetary deficit and that there is widespread poverty in the country. The financial outlays made by the plaintiff during the proceedings are evident, but it is also fair to take into account that the compensations should bear a relation to the financial situation of the State, and of the taxpayer, who has to bear the tax burden. Arturo Martínez Gálvez Judge ad hoc Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary