ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012
MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH THE MEASURES OF REPARATION
CONCERNING THE MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTENTION
ORDERED IN NINE COLOMBIAN CASES1
NOTICE OF A PRIVATE HEARING

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The order issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) on April 29, 2010, giving notice of a hearing in the
context of monitoring compliance with the measures of reparation concerning the
medical and psychological attention ordered in the cases of the 19 Tradesmen, the
Mapiripán Massacre, Gutiérrez Soler, the Pueblo Bello Massacre, the La Rochela
Massacre, the Ituango Massacres, Escué Zapata, and Valle Jaramillo, all with regard to
the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the State” or “Colombia”).
2.
The private hearing held by the Court on May 19, 2010, in the above-mentioned
cases (supra having seen paragraph 1), during which the State, the representatives of
the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) and the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”)
referred to the status of compliance with the measures of reparation concerning medical
and psychological attention ordered by the Court in each case.
3.
The briefs of June 28, and July 2 and 26, 2010, in which the representatives of
the victims forwarded information on compliance with the measures of reparation in the
said cases (supra having seen paragraph 1), and also on the proposed “Integral health
care reparation program (medical and psychological treatment) from a psychosocial
perspective, in the context of compliance with the judgments” delivered in these cases.
4.
The brief of July 2, 2010, in which the State forwarded a report with diverse
observations and “proposals” designed “to advance the commencement of the medical
and psychological attention for the beneficiaries” in the above-mentioned cases.
5.
The brief of April 26, 2011, in which the State provided information on
compliance with the measure of reparation and forwarded a “memorandum of
understanding” in which the parties “acknowledged and assumed compliance with the
measure of reparation” and agreed on a “coordination mechanism.”
1

Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004.
Series C No. 109, Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September
12, 2005. Series C No. 132, Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs.
Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits,
reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, Case of the Ituango Massacres v.
Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148,
Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series
C No. 163, Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series
C No. 165, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November
27, 2008. Series C No. 192. In addition, on March 15, 2011, the parties agreed “to include the Case of Manuel
Cepeda Vargas within the framework of the measure of reparation concerning health.” Case of Manuel Cepeda
Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C
No. 213.

Select target paragraph3