c) payment of pecuniary damages (Operative paragraphs No. 1 of the
Judgment on reparations and Operative paragraph No. 3 of the Judgment
regarding the interpretation of the judgment on reparations,) and
d) payment of interest on the amount of compensation for moral damage
(Operative paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of the Judgment on reparations.)
3.
The briefs of February 25, March 26, May 7, and June 1, 2010, February 23, and
March 8, 2011, and September 11, 2013, wherein the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the
State” or “Peru”) filed information in regard to the monitoring of compliance with the
Judgment ordered by the Court in this case.
4.
The briefs of April 4, and May 8, 2010, April 27, 2011, and November 1, 2013,
wherein Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado and Mr. Gustavo Guillermo Cesti Cardó, victims in
this case (hereinafter “the victims”), filed their observations to the State’s reports, as well
as information in regard to the monitoring of compliance with the Judgments (supra Having
Seen clause 3).
5.
The briefs of June 1, 2011, and November 7, 2013, wherein the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the
Commission”) filed its observations to the reports provided by the States and the information
provided by the victims (supra Having Seen clauses 3 and 4).
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor
compliance with its decisions.
2.
Peru became a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978 and
acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981.
3.
As established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully
and promptly with the judgments of the Court. Also, Article 68(1) of the American
Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with
the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, the State
must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments. 1
The obligation to fulfill that provided by the Court includes the State’s duty to inform the
Court of the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court. The prompt
implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each aspect ordered
by the Court is being fulfilled is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with
the Judgment as a whole. 2
4.
The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to
a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by
Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No.
104, para. 60, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering clause three.

1

2

Cf. Case of Five Pensioners V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause four, and Case of the Saramaka People V.
Surinam. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of
September 4, 2013, Considering clause twenty-four.

2

Select target paragraph3