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