INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF BARBANI DUARTE ET AL. v. URUGUAY JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 13, 2011 (Merits, reparations and costs) In the case of Barbani Duarte et al., the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges:1 Diego García-Sayán, President Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge Margarette May Macaulay, Judge Rhadys Abreu Blondet, Judge, and Eduardo Vio Grossi, Judge; also present2, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles 31, 32, 65 and 67 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court3 (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers this judgment, structured as follows:  The Court, meeting for its ninetieth regular session, decided to adopt the name “Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay” as the official name of this case, in accordance with the usual way of identifying cases before the Inter-American Court. The parties were informed of this decision in notes of the Secretariat of the Court dated March 2, 2011. 1 According to Article 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court applicable to the instant case (infra note 2), which establishes that: “[i] the cases referred to in Article 44 of the Convention, to judge who is to national of the respondent State shall not be able to participate in the hearing and deliberation of the case,” Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez, to Uruguayan national, did not take part in the processing of the instant case or in the deliberation and signature of this judgment. In addition, Judge Leonardo Franco advised the Court that, for reasons beyond his control, he could not be present for the deliberation and signature of this judgment. 2 The Deputy Secretary, Emilia Segares Rodríguez, advised the Court, that for reasons beyond her control, she could not be present for the deliberation of this judgment. 3 Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009, which apply to this case, in accordance with their Article 79. According to Article 79(2) of these Rules of Procedure, “[i]n cases in which the Commission has adopted to report under Article 50 of the Convention before the these Rules of Procedure have come into force, the presentation of the case before the Court will be governed by Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure previously in force. Statements shall be received [… applying] the provisions of these Rules of Procedure.” Therefore, with regard to the instant case, Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its forty-ninth regular session are applicable.