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.