3.
The Order on monitoring compliance with Judgment issued by the Court on
November 21, 2011, jointly, in the case of Boyce et al. and in the case of DaCosta
Cadogan.2
4.

The report submitted by the State on March 1, 2012.

5.
The written observations presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) on May 2, 2012.
6.
The written observations presented by the representatives of the victims (hereinafter
“the representatives”)3 on May 3, 2013.
7.
The brief submitted by the representatives of the victims on October 28, 2014, in
order to require the summoning of a monitoring compliance with judgment hearing.
8.
The Order on reimbursement of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund (hereinafter “the
Assistance Fund”) issued by the Presidency of the Court on August 2, 2015, jointly, in the
case of Boyce et al. and in the case of DaCosta Cadogan, declaring admissible the request of
the representatives to receive the support of such Fund.4
9.
The joint private hearing on monitoring compliance with judgment in the cases of
Boyce et al. and DaCosta Cadogan held on September 3, 2015 at the seat of the Court. 5
10.
The Order on reimbursement of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund issued by the
Court on November 14, 2017, jointly, in the case of Boyce et al. and the case of DaCosta
Cadogan, regarding reimbursement of the expenses related to appearance at the abovementioned hearing (supra having seen paragraph 8).6
11.
The reports presented by the State between September 2015 and December 2018,
in response to the requests made by the Court or its Presidency through notes of the
Court’s Secretariat.
12.
The written observations presented by the victims’ representatives between October
2015 and February 2019.
13.

The written observations presented by the Commission on March 6, 2019.

CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
In the exercise of its jurisdictional function of monitoring compliance with its
decisions,7 the Court has been monitoring the execution of the Judgment delivered in this
case more than 10 years ago (supra having seen paragraph 1). In the Judgment, the Court
ordered five reparation measures (infra consideranda 3, 5, 17 and 23). The Tribunal issued
an Order in November 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 2) in which it declared that

2

Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Boyce_21_11_11_%20ing1.pdf.

3

Messrs. Saul Lehrfreund and Parvais Jabbar of the Simons Muirhead & Burton law office.

4

Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/dacostaboyce_3_08_15_eng.pdf.

5

They appeared at this hearing: (a) for the victims: Andrew Pilgram QC and Saul Lehrfreund, and (b) for
the Inter-American Commission: Silvia Serrano Guzmán. Also, the plenary of the Court agreed that, for the State,
Jennifer Edwards, the State Attorney General and Charles Leacock, Director of Public Prosecutions, would
participate in the said hearing by videoconference.
6

Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/boycedaco_fv_17_ing.pdf.

7

This authority is also derived from the provisions of Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3) and 65 of the American
Convention on Human Rights and 30 of the Court’s Statute, and is regulated in Article 69 of its Rules of Procedure.

-2-

Select target paragraph3