ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

∗

OF FEBRUARY 13, 2013
CASE OF GÓMEZ PALOMINO v. PERU
MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The Judgment on 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 22, 2005. The case refers to the forced disappearance
of Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino; the failure to comply with the obligation to conduct
an investigation with due diligence leading to the elucidation of the facts and the eventual
prosecution of those responsible; the failure to determine the whereabouts of the remains of
the victim, and the impact on the personal integrity of his next of kin as a result of the
foregoing. The Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) made a partial
acknowledgement of international responsibility and was declared responsible for the
violation of Articles 4, 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5), 7(6), 8(1) and 25 of the
American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as well as for failure to comply with
the obligations established in Articles 2 of the American Convention and I(b) of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Santiago
Gómez Palomino, and of Articles 5, 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1)
of this instrument, to the detriment of his next of kin.
2.
The Orders issued by the Court on October 18, 2007, July 1, 2009, and July 5, 2011,
with regard to compliance with the Judgment delivered in this case. In the last Order, the
Court declared that:
[…]
3.
It would keep the proceeding of monitoring compliance open with regard to the following
pending aspects:
a)
To investigate effectively the alleged facts, and to identify, prosecute and punish, as
appropriate, those responsible for the violations (seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment);
b)
To take, with due diligence, the measures required to locate the mortal remains of
Santiago Gómez Palomino and to return them to his next of kin, and to provide the necessary
conditions to transfer and bury the remains in a place of their choice (eighth operative paragraph
of the Judgment);
∗

Judge Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national, recused himself from hearing the monitoring of
compliance of this case, pursuant to Articles 19(2) of the Court’s Statute and 19(1) of its Rules of Procedure
approved at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez advised
the Court that, for reasons beyond his control he would be unable to attend the deliberation and signature of this
Order.

Select target paragraph3