The communication of February 9, 2001, with which Peru forwarded Supreme
Resolution No. 062-2001-RE, published in the official gazette El Peruano on February
8, 2001, in which it appointed agents for the State in the Durand and Ugarte, Neira
Alegría et al., Castillo Páez, Loayza Tamayo, Castillo Petruzzi et al., Cantoral
Benavides, Barrios Altos, Cesti Hurtado, Constitutional Court and Ivcher Bronstein
The State’s briefs of March 30 and May 7, 2001, in the Castillo Páez case,
February 16, and April 10 and 11, 2001, in the Loayza Tamayo case, April 18 and
May 8 and 16, 2001, in the Castillo Petruzzi et al. case, April 18, 2001, in the Ivcher
Bronstein case and April 18 and May 25, 2001, in the Constitutional Court case,
informing the Court about progress in compliance with the judgment in each of these
That Article 68(1) of the Convention establishes that “[t]he States Parties to
the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to
which they are parties”.
That this obligation corresponds to a basic principle of the law of State
international responsibility, firmly supported by international jurisprudence,
according to which States must comply with their obligations under international
conventions in good faith (pacta sunt servanda)2.
That the measures adopted by the State of Peru (supra Having seen 7, 10
and 11) imply compliance with the decisions of the Court in the judgments on
competence of September 24, 1999, in the Constitutional Court and Ivcher Bronstein
That, the information that this Court has received implies that progress has
been made in compliance with the judgments in the Castillo Páez, Loayza Tamayo,
Castillo Petruzzi et al., Ivcher Bronstein and Constitutional Court cases.


Cf. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26. The Right to Information on Consular
Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of
October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 128; and International Responsibility for the Promulgation and
Enforcement of Laws in violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on
Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35.

Select target paragraph3