ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS* OF MAY 14, 2013 CASE OF RADILLA PACHECO v. MEXICO MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT HAVING SEEN: 1. The Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (hereinafter “the Judgment”) delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) on November 23, 2009. In this Judgment, it was established that, on August 25, 1974, members of the Army of the United Mexican States (hereinafter “the State” or “Mexico”) forcibly disappeared Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, in the systematic context of numerous forced disappearances of persons. Furthermore, the State itself acknowledged, on the one hand, that Mr. Radilla Pacheco had been illegally and arbitrarily deprived of his liberty by a public official and, on the other hand, that Mexico had delayed unjustifiably the investigations conducted into these facts. Consequently, the Court decided that the State was responsible for the violation, to the detriment of Mr. Radilla Pacheco, of Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 7(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention"), in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, and to Articles I and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter “the ICFDP”). In addition, it declared the State’s responsibility for the violation, to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Radilla Pacheco, of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, owing to the suffering they endured as a result of his forced disappearance, and of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to its Articles 1(1) and 2 and to Articles I(a), (b) and (d), IX and XIX of the ICFDP, owing to the absence of a judicial response to clarify the facts of the case, and because it extended the competence of the military jurisdiction to crimes that were not strictly related to military discipline or legal rights intrinsic to the military sphere. Lastly, the Court determined that the State had failed to comply with the obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law established in Article 2 of the Convention, in relation to Articles I and III of the ICFDP, owing to the incomplete definition of the crime of forced disappearance of persons in the Federal Criminal Code. * Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, a Mexican national, did not take part in the deliberation of this Order pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. In addition, Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi advised the Court that, for reasons beyond his control, he would be unable to attend the deliberation and signature of this Order.