American Commission that the acting President of the Court for this case had been
informed of this request.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
On November 25, 2006, the Court delivered the Judgment on merits,
reparations and costs in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, which is
therefore at the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment.
2.
The Court decided to convene the parties and the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights to a private hearing on monitoring compliance with the Judgment,
which was held at the seat of the Court on August 19, 2013. The purpose of this
hearing was to receive detailed and updated information from the State on
compliance with the measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment and to hear the
observations of the two common interveners of the representatives of the victims
and the opinion of the Inter-American Commission (supra having seen paragraph 3).
3.
On August 5, 2013, Douglass Cassel, common intervener of the
representatives, presented a request for support from the Victims’ Legal Assistance
Fund to cover “the reasonable and necessary transportation, accommodation and
subsistence expenses so [that the victim Sebastián Chávez Sifuentes may] attend
the hearing on August 19” (supra having seen paragraph 3). Mr. Cassel also
explained that he himself was “covering the expenses of [the] three lawyers who
[would be travelling] from the United States to attend the hearing,” but neither he
nor the other two lawyers participate directly in the efforts made in the domestic
sphere to achieve compliance with the Judgment. He stressed that Mr. Chávez
Sifuentes was the main collaborator for the actions taken in Peru and for direct
communication with the victims. Mr. Cassel stated that, for this reason, he
considered that the “presence [of Mr. Chávez Sifuentes] at the hearing would be
extremely useful to ensure that the Court has the most complete information as
regards the purpose of the hearing.”
4.
In 2008, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States
(hereinafter “the OAS”) created the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American
Human Rights System (hereinafter “Assistance Fund of the Inter-American System”),
in order to “facilitate access to the inter-American human rights system by persons
who currently lack the resources needed to bring their cases before the system.” 1
According to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the OAS Permanent
Council in November 2009, 2 the Assistance Fund of the Inter-American System has
two separate accounts: one corresponding to the Inter-American Commission and
the other to the Inter-American Court. 3 Regarding the financing of the Assistance
Fund of the Inter-American System, currently this depends on “[v]oluntary capital
1
AG/RES. 2426 (XXXVIII-O/08), Resolution adopted by the thirty-eighth General Assembly of the
OAS, during the fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008, “Creation of the Legal Assistance Fund of
the Inter-American Human Rights System,” operative paragraph 2(a) and (b), and CP/RES. 963
(1728/09), Resolution adopted by the OAS Permanent Council on November 11, 2009, “Rules of Procedure
for the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Human Rights System,” article 1(1).
2

Cf. Resolution CP/RES. 963 (1728/09), supra note 1, article 3(1).

3

Pursuant to article 4 of the Permanent Council’s Rules of Procedure for the Operation of the
Assistance Fund of the Inter-American System, it is for the Court to regulate the eligibility requirements to
request assistance, as well as the procedure for approving this.

2

Select target paragraph3