Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil Judgment of September 23, 2009 (Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs) In the case of Garibaldi, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges: Cecilia Medina Quiroga, President Diego García-Sayán, Vice President Sergio García Ramírez, Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge Leonardo A. Franco, Judge Margarette May Macaulay, Judge Rhadys Abreu Blondet, Judge, and Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas, 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 American Convention” or “the Convention”) and Articles 29, 31, 37(6), 56 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court1 (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers this judgment. I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On December 24, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the Court an application against the Federative Republic of Brazil (hereinafter “the State”, “Brazil” or “the Union”), originating from the petition presented by the organizations Justiça Global, Rede Nacional de Advogados e Advogadas Populares (RENAP) and the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) on May 6, 2003, on behalf of Sétimo Garibaldi (hereinafter also “Mr. Garibaldi”) and his next of kin. On March 27, 2007, the Commission issued Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 13/07 (hereinafter also “Report No. 13/07”), under Article 50 of 1 Under Article 72(2) of the current Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, the latest amendments of which entered into force as of March 24, 2009, “[c]ases pending resolution shall be processed according to the provisions of these Rules of Procedure, except for those cases in which a hearing has already been convened at the time of the entry into force of these Rules of Procedure; such cases shall be governed by the provisions of the previous Rules of Procedure.” Thus, the Court’s Rules of Procedure mentioned in this judgment correspond to the instrument approved by the Court at its forty-ninth session held from November 16 to 25, 2000, partially amended by the Court at its sixty-first session held from November 20 to December 4, 2003.