ORDER OF THE ACTING PRESIDENT OF
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
∗
FOR THIS CASE
OF JULY 29, 2013
REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE COMMON INTERVENER FOR THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES
CASE OF THE MIGUEL CASTRO CASTRO PRISON V. PERU
MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The Judgment on merits, reparations and costs (hereinafter “the Judgment”)
issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American
Court” or “the Court”) on November 25, 2006.
2.
The Interpretation of said Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court on
August 2, 2008.
3.
The notes of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of June
4 and July 9 and 23, 2013, in which the parties and the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights were informed that the Court had decided to reschedule the private
hearing on monitoring compliance with the Judgment in this case, and to hold it on
August 19, 2013, at the Court’s seat, during its 100th Regular Period of Sessions.
4.
The brief presented on July 13, 2013, in which Mrs. Monica Feria Tinta, a victim
and the common intervener for the representatives of the victims and their relatives in
this case (hereinafter “the common intervener” or “Mrs. Feria Tinta”), requested
support from the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court
(hereinafter “the Victims’ Assistance Fund” or “the Assistance Fund”) for the
appearance at the aforementioned private hearing on monitoring compliance.
5.
The notes of the Secretariat of July 18, 2013, informing the common intervener
Monica Feria Tinta, the other common intervener of the representatives of the victims,
Mr. Douglas Cassel, the State of Peru and the Inter-American Commission that said
request was brought to the attention of the acting President of the Court for this case.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
The Court issued the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs in the Case of
the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru on November 25, 2006, and therefore this case
is currently at the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment.

∗
Judge Diego García-Sayán did not participate in the deliberation and signing of the Judgment in this
case. According to Articles 4(2) and 5 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles,
Vice President of the Court, assumed the acting Presidency in this case.

Select target paragraph3