CCPR/C/137/D/3585/2019 Annex [Original: Spanish] Individual opinion of Committee member Carlos Gómez Martínez (dissenting) 1. I do not agree with the finding that the information before the Committee discloses a violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 2. The authors argue that they did not obtain proper guidance from the Court and that they did not sufficiently understand the laws and facts in order to prevent the Court from ruling against their title to the disputed land, in violation of the principles of both equality before the courts and of fair and impartial trial (see para. 3.9). 3. We must remember that we are dealing with civil proceedings in which the parties are two different Indigenous communities fighting over a land title. The principle of equality of arms in civil proceedings entails that both parties have the same opportunities to appear in court, present allegations, provide evidence and defend the legal arguments underpinning their claims. 4. Therefore, the assessment of whether the authors received equal treatment can only be made in comparison with the other party – namely, the Indigenous People heard during the judicial process and in whose favour the judgment was handed down – something on which the Committee lacks information. 5. The Committee found a violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant on the grounds that the Court failed to provide the authors with legal assistance, to take into account the evidence and to allow them to appeal. However, the Committee did not consider whether the procedural burdens on the other party were different or less onerous. 6. The authors’ claim that they did not receive free legal aid, to which they should have been entitled due to their lack of resources, is insufficiently substantiated, as they admit that they had the means to appoint a lawyer initially (see para. 2.13) and that, at a later stage in the proceedings, they hired a lawyer to file an appeal (see para. 2.20). 7. The authors add that they did not have enough time to prepare their arguments and that the Internet does not work well in the area where they live. However, they do not provide any evidence to support these claims or the claim that the opposing party faced lesser burdens in appearing before the Court; therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was unequal access to justice amounting to a violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. GE.23-13390 17