Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. v. Peru
Judgment of February 7, 2006

(Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs)

In the case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al v. Peru,
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or
“the Court”), composed of the following judges :*
Sergio García-Ramírez, President;
Alirio Abreu-Burelli, Vice President;
Oliver Jackman, Judge;
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, Judge;
Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, Judge;
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Judge; and
Javier de Belaunde-López de Romaña, Judge ad hoc;
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,
56, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of
Procedure”), delivers the following judgment.
On June 25, 2003, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 50 and 61 of the
American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed before the Court an
application against the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) originating in
petition No. 12.084, received by the Secretariat of the Commission on January 13,
The Commission filed the application for the Court to determine whether Peru
was responsible for violating Article 25(2)(c) (Right to Judicial Protection) of the
Judge Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national, was not part of the Court in this case because at
the time he was sworn in, the State of Peru had already appointed a judge ad hoc pursuant to the
provisions of Article 10 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Select target paragraph3