ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF MAY 22, 2013
CASE OF ABRILL ALOSILLA ET AL. v. PERU ∗
MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT
HAVING SEEN:
1.
The Judgment on merits, reparations and costs delivered on March 4, 2011
(hereinafter “the Judgment”) by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), in which it accepted the partial
acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State and declared that
the rights to judicial protection and property had been violated because
implementation of the annulment of the salary ratios system had the following effects:
(i) reduction in the salaries of the victims as of December 1992; (ii) retroactive
recovery from the victims of the payments made between January and November 1992
under the increase based on salary ratios, and (iii) absence of increase in the salaries
of the victims as of July 1992 as a result of the last admissible salary ratio. This meant
that no judicial protection existed with regard to the retroactive application of norms,
in disregard of domestic law, and that acquired rights in relation to remunerations that
already formed part of the personal wealth of the victims were affected.
2.
Thus, in the Judgment the Court ordered that:
5.
The State must pay, within one year, the amounts established in the annex to the
Judgment and in paragraph 132 of th[e] Judgment as compensation for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse costs and expenses, as applicable, in the terms of
paragraphs 115, 132, 139 and 140 to 145 [t]hereof.
6.
The State must, within six months, make the publication of th[e] Judgment in the
Official Gazette, in accordance with paragraph 92 of th[e] Judgment.
3.
The briefs of July 26, 2011, February 2, May 21 and June 21, 2012, and
February 5, 2013, in which the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”)
presented the State reports on compliance with the Judgment delivered by the Court in
this case.
∗
The President of the Court, Judge Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national, did not take part in this
case pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, according to which “[i]n the cases referred
to in Article 44 of the Convention, a judge who is a national of the respondent State shall not be able to
participate in the hearing and deliberation of the case.”