CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA RAMÍREZ IN THE JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS AND REPARATIONS IN THE “MAYAGNA (SUMO) AWAS TINGNI COMMUNITY CASE” 1. I have voted with the majority on the Court in the Judgment on the merits and reparations in the instant case, which finds that articles 21 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights were violated to the detriment of the Mayagna Awas Tingni Community. Before arriving at this decision, the Court carefully examined the arguments of the petitioners, who were represented before this Court by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. It also examined the position of the State, which explicitly acknowledged the rights of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community and its members (par. 152 of the Judgment), the evidence offered at the hearing and other information in the case file. Building on this foundation, the Court has, in my view, correctly interpreted Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. When exercising its contentious jurisdiction, the Inter-American Court is dutybound to observe the provisions of the American Convention, to interpret them in accordance with the rules that the Convention itself sets forth and those that can be applied under the legal regime governing international treaties, as set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of May 23, 1969. It must also heed the principle of interpretation that requires that the object and purpose of the treaties be considered (Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention), referenced below, and the principle pro homine of the international law of human rights –frequently cited in this Court’s case-law- which requires the interpretation that is conducive to the fullest protection of persons, all for the ultimate purpose of preserving human dignity, ensuring fundamental rights and encouraging their advancement. 3. Article 29 of the American Convention, which concerns the Convention’s interpretation, states that no provision of the Convention shall be interpreted as “restricting the exercise or enjoyment of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party (...).” In other words, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Convention contained provisions that restricted or limited preexisting rights, which it does not, those persons protected under the legal regime that the Convention establishes would not forfeit the freedoms, prerogatives or authorities they have under the laws of the State to whose jurisdiction they are subject. The rights, prerogatives and authorities recognized under domestic laws are not supplanted by Convention-recognized rights; instead, they are adjusted to conform to the rights recognized under the Convention, or are added to an evergrowing body of human rights. 4. Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides as follows: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” In this regard, the object and purpose of the American Convention on Human Rights are to uphold human dignity and recognize the demands that the protection and fulfillment of the human person pose, to articulate attendant obligations, and to provide juridical instruments that preserve that human dignity and meet those demands. When examining the ordinary meaning of the terms of the treaty now being applied –namely, the American Convention-, one has to consider the scope and meaning –or scopes and meanings- that the term “property” has in the countries of the Americas.