Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panamá
Judgment of January 27, 2009
(Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs)

In the case of Tristán Donoso,
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”,
“the Court” or “the Tribunal”), composed of the following judges:
Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, President;
Diego García-Sayán, Vice-President;
Sergio García-Ramírez, Judge
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Judge;
Leonardo A. Franco, Judge;
Margarette May Macaulay, Judge, and
Rhadys Abreu-Blondet, 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 Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles 29, 31,
37(6), 56 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of
Procedure”), delivers the following Judgment.

I
INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE DISPUTE
1.
On August 28, 2007, pursuant to the provisions in Articles 51 and 61 of the
American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted an application to
the Court against the Republic of Panamá (hereinafter “the State” or “Panamá”),
originating in the petition filed on July 4, 2000 by the Centro por la Justicia y el
Derecho Internacional [Center for Justice and International Law] (hereinafter “the
representatives” or “CEJIL”), the representatives of Mr. Tristán Donoso, the alleged
victim in the instant case (hereinafter “Mr. Tristán Donoso” or “the alleged victim”).
On October 24, 2002 the Commission declared the case admissible by means of
Report No. 71/02 and on October 26, 2006 it adopted Report No. 114/06, under
Article 50 of the Convention, wherein certain recommendations for the State were
contained. Such report was served upon the State on November 28, 2006 and it was
given a two-month time limit to communicate about the action taken for the purpose
of implementing the recommendations by the Commission. Once the “[e]xtensions
granted had fallen due […], and given the lack of response by the State […]

Select target paragraph3