Order of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
of November 17, 2004
Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru
(Compliance with Judgment)

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The Judgment on merits that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) delivered on March 14, 2001,
where it unanimously decided:
1.

To admit the State’s recognition of international responsibility.

2.
To find, in accordance with the terms of the State’s recognition of international
responsibility, that it [had] violated:
a)

the right to life embodied in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human
Rights, with regard to Placentina Marcela Chumbipuma Aguirre, Luis Alberto
Díaz Astovilca, Octavio Benigno Huamanyauri Nolazco, Luis Antonio León Borja,
Filomeno León León, Máximo León León, Lucio Quispe Huanaco, Tito Ricardo
Ramírez Alberto, Teobaldo Ríos Lira, Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez, Javier Manuel
Ríos Rojas, Alejandro Rosales Alejandro, Nelly María Rubina Arquiñigo, Odar
Mender Sifuentes Nuñez and Benedicta Yanque Churo;

b)

the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, with regard to Natividad Condorcahuana Chicaña,
Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega and Alfonso Rodas Alvítez; and

c)

the right to a fair trial and judicial protection embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of
the American Convention on Human Rights, with regard to the next of kin of
Placentina Marcela Chumbipuma Aguirre, Luis Alberto Díaz Astovilca, Octavio
Benigno Huamanyauri Nolazco, Luis Antonio León Borja, Filomeno León León,
Máximo León León, Lucio Quispe Huanaco, Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto,
Teobaldo Ríos Lira, Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez, Javier Manuel Ríos Rojas,
Alejandro Rosales Alejandro, Nelly María Rubina Arquiñigo, Odar Mender
Sifuentes Nuñez, Benedicta Yanque Churo, and with regard to Natividad
Condorcahuana Chicaña, Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega and Alfonso
Rodas Alvítez, as a result of the promulgation and application of Amnesty Laws
No. 26479 and No. 26492.

3.
To find, in accordance with the terms of the State’s recognition of international
responsibility, that the State [had] failed to comply with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American
Convention on Human Rights as a result of the promulgation and application of Amnesty Laws
No. 26479 and No. 26492 and the violation of the articles of the Convention mentioned in
operative paragraph 2 of [the] judgment.
4.
To find that Amnesty Laws No. 26479 and No. 26492 [were] incompatible with
the American Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, lack[ed] legal effect.
5.
To find that the State of Peru should investigate the facts to determine the
identity of those responsible for the human rights violations referred to in [the]
judgment, and also publish the results of [the] investigation and punish those
responsible.
6.
To order that reparations [were to] be established by mutual agreement
between the defendant State, the Inter-American Commission and the victims, their

Select target paragraph3