ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ∗
OF AUGUST 28, 2013
CASE OF CASTAÑEDA GUTMAN v. MEXICO

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (hereinafter
“the Judgment”) of August 6, 2008, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Inter-American Court,” “the Court” or “this Court”), in which it declared the
violation of the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25 of the American Convention
on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), in relation to
Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Castañeda Gutman, who did
not have an effective judicial remedy to contest the refusal to register him as an independent
candidate for the office of President of the Mexican State (hereinafter “Mexico” or “the State”)
in the 2006 elections.
2.
The brief of March 2, 2009, and its annexes, in which the State provided information
on compliance with the Judgment.
3.
The brief of May 7, 2009, in which the representatives of the victim (hereinafter “the
representatives”) forwarded their observations on the information provided by the State.
4.
The brief of April 21, 2009, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”), forwarded its
observations on the information provided by the State
5.
The Order on monitoring compliance with the Judgment issued by the Court on July 1,
2009, in which the Court declared that:
1.

The State has complied fully with the operative paragraphs of the Judgment which establish
that the State must:
a) Publish, once, in the Official Gazette and in another national newspaper with widespread
circulation paragraphs 77 to 133 of this Judgment, without the footnotes, and its operative
paragraphs, within six months of its notification (seventh operative paragraph of the
Judgment).
b) Pay Jorge Castañeda Gutman the amount established in paragraph 244 of the Judgment,
for reimbursement of costs and expenses, within six months of its notification (eighth
operative paragraph of the Judgment).

2.

It would keep the procedure of monitoring compliance open with regard to the sixth operative
paragraph of the Judgment, which establishes that the State must, within a reasonable time,
complete the adaptation of its domestic law to the Convention, in order to adapt the secondary
legislation and the norms that regulate the action for the protection of the rights of the citizen
to the constitutional reform of November 13, 2007, so that, using this remedy, citizens are

∗
Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, a Mexican national, did not take part in the examination and
deliberation of this Order, pursuant to the provisions of Article 19(2) of the Court’s Statute and 19(1) of its Rules of
Procedure.

Select target paragraph3