INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF GONZÁLEZ MEDINA AND FAMILY v. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC JUDGMENT OF FEBRUARY 27, 2012 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) In the case of González Medina and family, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges: 1 Diego García-Sayán, President Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Vice President Leonardo A. Franco, Judge Margarette May Macaulay, Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez, Judge, and Eduardo Vio Grossi, Judge; also present, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary, pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) and Articles 31, 32, 65 and 67 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court 2 (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers this judgment structured as follows: 1 In accordance with Article 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court applicable to this case (infra note 2), which establish that “[i]n the cases referred to in Article 44 of the Convention, a judge who is a national of the respondent State shall not be able to participate in the hearing and deliberation of the case,” Judge Rhadys Abreu Blondet, a Dominican national, did not take part in the processing of this case or in the deliberation and signature of this judgment. 2 The Court’s Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its eight-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 29, 2009, which apply to the instant case in accordance with Article 79 thereof. According to Article 79(2) of the said Rules of Procedure, “[i]n cases in which the Commission has adopted a report under Article 50 of the Convention before the these Rules of Procedure have come into force, the presentation of the case before the Court will be governed by Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure previously in force. These Rules of Procedure shall apply. The provisions of these Rules of Procedure shall apply to the reception of statements.” Therefore, Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its forty-ninth regular session apply with regard to the presentation of the case.