ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS*
OF JULY 1, 2011
CASE OF PALAMARA IRIBARNE v. CHILE
MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The judgment on merits, reparations and costs (hereinafter “the judgment”)
delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American
Court” or “the Court”) on November 22, 2005.
2.
The orders on monitoring compliance with the judgment issued by the InterAmerican Court on November 30, 2007, and September 21, 2009. In the latter, the Court
decided to maintain the procedure of monitoring compliance open until the pending
obligations in the present case have been complied with, namely:
a) To adopt, within a reasonable time, all the measures necessary to amend domestic laws
concerning freedom of thought and freedom of expression, in the terms of paragraphs 254 and 255
of the judgment (thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment);
b) To amend domestic laws so that, in cases where the military criminal jurisdiction is considered
necessary, it is limited to hearing offenses committed during the course of duty by military
personnel on active service. Thus, the State must enact legislation to place limits on the
jurisdiction over persons and subject matter of the military courts so that, under no circumstances,
may civilians be subject to the jurisdiction of military criminal courts, in the terms of paragraphs
256 and 257 of the judgment (fourteenth operative paragraph of the judgment); and,
c) To guarantee due process in the military criminal jurisdiction and judicial protection regarding
the actions of the military authorities, in the terms of paragraph 257 of the judgment (fifteenth
operative paragraph of the judgment).

3.
The briefs of October 8, 2009, February 10, September 16 and November 25, 2010,
and January 13, 2011, and their respective attachments, in which the Republic of Chile
(hereinafter “the State” or “Chile”) presented information on the aspects of the judgment
pending compliance.
4.
The briefs of February 22 and October 5, 2010, and February 4, 2011, in which the
representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their

*

Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, a Chilean national, excused himself from hearing this matter in accordance with
Articles 19 of the Statute and 21 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and this was accepted by the Court. Also, Judge
Alberto Pérez Pérez informed the Court that, for reasons beyond his control, he was unable to take part in the
deliberation and signature of this order.

Select target paragraph3