Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru
Judgment of November 25, 2004
(Merits, Reparations and Costs)

In the Lori Berenson Mejía case,
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the InterAmerican Court”), composed of the following judges*:
Sergio García Ramírez, President
Alirio Abreu Burelli, Vice President
Oliver Jackman, Judge
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, Judge
Cecilia Medina Quiroga, Judge
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge, and
Juan Federico D. Monroy Gálvez, Judge ad-hoc;
also present,
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and
Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary
pursuant to Articles 29, 31, 56 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court
(hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”)1, and Article 63(1) of the American Convention
on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”),
delivers this judgment.
On July 19, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed an
application before the Court against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or
“Peru”), arising from petition No. 11,876, received by the Secretariat of the
Commission on January 22, 1998.
The Commission filed the application on the basis of Article 61 of the
American Convention for the Court to decide whether the State had violated Articles
5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 9 (Freedom from Ex
Post Facto Laws) of the Convention, all in relation to the obligation established in


Judge Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national, excused himself from hearing the instant case, in
accordance with Articles 19(2) of the Statute and 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and also
because he had been a judge ad hoc since October 2002.

This judgment is delivered according to the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights at its forty-ninth regular session in an order of November 24, 2000, which entered
into force on June 1, 2001, and according to the partial reform adopted by the Court at its sixty-first
regular session in an order of November 25, 2003, and in force since January 1, 2004.

Select target paragraph3