Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Case of Acevedo Buendía et al.
("Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v.
Perú
Judgment of July 1, 2009
(Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs)

In the case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the
Comptroller”),1
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Inter-American
Court”, “the Court” or “the Tribunal”) composed of the following judges:2
Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, President;
Sergio García Ramírez, Judge
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge;
Leonardo A. Franco, Judge;
Margarette May Macaulay, Judge;
Rhadys Abreu-Blondet, Judge and
Víctor Oscar Shiyín García Toma, Judge ad hoc;
also present,
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary
Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary,
pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human
Rights (hereinafter, “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles
29, 31, 37(6), 56, and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure3 (hereinafter, “the
Rules of Procedure”) delivers this Judgment.

1
During the processing of this case before the Court and, previously, during the processing of
the application before the Inter-American commission on Human Rights, the name of “Members of the
Association of the Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller General of the Republic V.
Perú” has been used to refer to this case. Nevertheless, the Court shall use the name of Acevedo
Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) V. Perú" hereinafter.
2
Judge Diego García-Sayán, Peruvian, disqualified himself from hearing the case at hand, in
accordance with Articles 19(2) of the Court’s Statute and 19 of the Rules of Procedure, given the fact
that, in his capacity as incumbent Minister of Justice of Perú, in the year 2001 he received from the
Association general information about the activities that the Association had been carrying out before
the Minister of Economy and Finance of Perú and before the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights. Even though having learnt about that information does not affect his independence and
impartiality to hear the case, he considered it was prudent to disqualify himself from taking part in it.
3
According to the provision of Article 72(2) of the Rules of the Procedure of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, which entered into forced on March 24, 2009, “cases pending Order
shall be processed according to the provisions of these Rules of Procedure, except for those cases in
which a hearing has already been convened upon the entry into force of these Rules of Procedure;
such cases shall be governed by the provisions of the previous Rules of Procedure". In this regard, the
Rules of Procedure mentioned in this Judgment corresponds to the document approved by the Tribunal
on its XLIX Ordinary Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 25, 2000 and partially amended by
the Court in its LXI Ordinary Period of Sessions held from November 20 to December 4, 2003.

Select target paragraph3