2.
The notes of the Secretariat1 in which, on the instructions of the President, the
State was reminded that, according to the twentieth operative paragraph of the Judgment
(supra having seen paragraph 1), it should present a report on the measures taken to
comply with the Judgment. This time frame had expired without the State forwarding its
report, even though it had been reminded to do so on six occasions.
3.
The briefs of September 3 and December 8, 2009, December 13, 2010, October 3,
2011, and July 23, 2012, in which the representative of the victims (hereinafter “the
representative”) submitted arguments in relation to monitoring compliance with this
Judgment.
4.
The Order issued by the President on December 18, 2008, in which he convened
the State, the victims and their representatives, and the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) to a private hearing in order to receive
updated information on the aspects of the Judgment pending compliance.
5.
The private hearing held by the Court at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, on
January 29, 2010.2 During this hearing, among other documents, the Court was provided
with a certified copy of Judgment 1939 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme
Court of Justice of December 18, 2008.
6.
The notes of the Secretariat of January 11 and October 10, 2011, and May 14,
2012, in which, on the instruction of the acting President, the State was again reminded
to present a report on the steps taken to comply with the measures ordered in the
Judgment. At the date of this Order this report has still not been presented.
7.
The note of the Secretariat of October 10, 2011, in which, on the instructions of
the Court in plenary, a note was sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs consulting whether
it was appropriate to continue forwarding the communications to the agent appointed by
the State, or whether they should be sent to another official. At the date of this Order,
this consultation has not been answered.
8.
The brief of May 18, 2012, in which the Agent of the State before the interAmerican system indicated that the State’s representative in this case is Mayerling Rojas
Villasmil, who forwarded the Court a certified copy of “judgment 1939 of the
Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 18, 2008.” In
addition, he indicated that, during the private hearing on monitoring compliance held in
this case, the said “representative [had] explained the legal reasons why” the Judgment
of this Court “cannot be judicialized in Venezuela.” Lastly, he stated that he “could only
urge” the Court, “in its next Order on monitoring compliance with judgment, to rule on the
analysis of the legal grounds argued by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela concerning
compliance” with the Judgment.

1

The notes of March 20 (REF.: CDH-12.489/177), May 19 (REF.: CDH-12.489/181), June 26 (REF.: CDH12.489/185), July 29 (REF.: CDH-12.489/189), September 8 (REF.: CDH-12.489/194), and November 12, 2009
(REF.: CDN-12.489/197).
2
In accordance with Article 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court held the private hearing with a
committee of judges composed of: Judge Manuel Ventura Robles, Judge Margaret May Macaulay, Judge Rhadys
Abreu Blondet and Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi. At this hearing, there appeared: (a) for the Inter-American
Commission: Silvia Serrano, Adviser; (b) for the victims and their representatives: Héctor Faúndez Ledesma, and
(c) for the State of Venezuela: Mayerling Rojas Villasmil, Agent, and Gilberto Guerrero Rocca, Deputy Agent.

2

Select target paragraph3