Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru

Judgment of March 14, 2001
(Merits)

In the Barrios Altos case,
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or the “InterAmerican Court”), composed of the following judges:1
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, President
Máximo Pacheco Gómez, Vice President
Hernán Salgado Pesantes, Judge
Alirio Abreu Burelli, Judge
Sergio García Ramírez, Judge and
Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo, Judge;
also present:
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Secretary and
Renzo Pomi, Deputy Secretary
in accordance with Articles 29, 55 and 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court
(hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers this judgment.

I
INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE
1.
On June 8, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted to the
Court the application in this case, in which it invoked Article 51(1) of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American
Convention”) and Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure. The Commission submitted
the case so that the Court would decide whether the State of Peru (hereinafter
“Peru”, “the State” or “the State of Peru”) had violated Article 4 (Right to Life) of the
American Convention with regard to Placentina Marcela Chumbipuma Aguirre, Luis
Alberto Díaz Astovilca, Octavio Benigno Huamanyauri Nolazco, Luis Antonio León
Borja, Filomeno León León, Máximo León León, Lucio Quispe Huanaco, Tito Ricardo
Ramírez Alberto, Teobaldo Ríos Lira, Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez, Javier Manuel Ríos
Rojas, Alejandro Rosales Alejandro, Nelly María Rubina Arquiñigo, Odar Mender
Sifuentes Nuñez and Benedicta Yanque Churo. It also requested the Court to decide
whether the State had violated Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the
American Convention with regard to Natividad Condorcahuana Chicaña, Felipe León
1
Judge Oliver Jackman informed the Court that, for reasons beyond his control, he could not
attend the Twenty-fifth special session of the Court; consequently, he did not take part in the discussion
and signature of this judgment.

Select target paragraph3