INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF ATALA RIFFO AND DAUGHTERS
v. CHILE

JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 21, 2012
(Request for Interpretation of Judgment
on Merits, Reparations and Costs)

In the case of Atala Riffo and daughters,
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Inter-American Court” or the
“Court”) composed of the following judges 1:
Diego García-Sayán, President;
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Vice-President;
Leonardo A. Franco, Judge;
Margarette May Macaulay, Judge;
Rhadys Abreu-Blondet, Judge;
Alberto Pérez Pérez, Judge;
Also present,
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary and,
Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary;
pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the
“American Convention” or “the Convention”) and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court2 (hereinafter, the “Rules of Procedure”), rules on the request for interpretation of the
Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs delivered by this Court on February 24, 2012 in
1

According to Article 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, applicable to this case
(infra note 2), which establishes that “[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”, Judge
Vio Grossi, of Chilean nationality, did not participate in the processing of this case or in the deliberation of this
Judgment.
2

The Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its Eighty-fifth Regular Period of Sessions held on
November 16-28, 2009, apply in this case, in accordance with the provisions of Article 79 of said Rules of
Procedure. Article 79.2 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that“[i]n cases in which the Commission has adopted a
report under Article 50 of the Convention before these Rules of Procedure have come into force, the presentation of
the case before the Court shall be governed by Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure previously in force.
With respect to the reception of statements, the provisions of these Rules shall apply.” Therefore, as regards the
presentation of the case, Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its Forty-ninth
Regular Session, were applicable.

Select target paragraph3