ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS*
OF JULY 1, 2011
CASE OF CASTILLO PETRUZZI ET AL. v. PERU
MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The judgment on merits, reparations, and costs (hereinafter “the judgment”)
delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Court” or “the Court”) on May 30, 1999, in which it decided unanimously
that the State must:
13.
find the proceedings conducted against Jaime Francisco Sebastián Castillo Petruzzi,
María Concepción Pincheira Sáez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra and Alejandro Luis Astorga
Valdez invalid, as they were incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights, and
order that the persons in question be ensured a new trial in which the guarantees of due
process of law are ensured[;]
14.
[…] adopt appropriate measures to amend those laws that th[e] judgment has
declared to be in violation of the American Convention on Human Rights and ensure the
enjoyment and exercise of the rights recognized in the American Convention […] to all persons
subject to its jurisdiction, without exception[, and]
15.
[…] pay the total of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars), or its
equivalent in Peru’s national currency, to the next of kin of Jaime Francisco Sebastián Castillo
Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira Sáez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra and Alejandro
Luis Astorga Valdez who prove they have incurred costs and expenses by reason of the instant
case. The procedure followed shall be the one described in paragraph 224 of th[e] judgment.

2.
The Orders on Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment of the Inter-American
Court of November 17, 1999, and June 1, 2001.
3.
The communications of the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) of
September 12, 2000; April 18 and 20, May 8 and 16, and June 25, 2001; January 9 and
22, March 15, August 17, September 2, October 25, and November 14 and 29, 2002;
January 5, and February 4 and 17, 2003; December 28, 2004; March 10, November 2,
15, and 28, and December 19, 2005, June 29, 2009, and April 13, and May 6, 2011 in
which it referred to compliance with the judgment.
4.
The briefs of the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) of
July 30, September 3, 7, and 28, and October 4 and 16, 2001 January 7, March 11, July
17, and October 31, 2002; February 11, March 7, September 26, and October 3, 2003;
September 29, and November 5, 2004, and January 19, and March 13, 2006, and
October 23, 2009, in which they submitted their observations concerning the status of
compliance with the judgment.
5.
The communications of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) of September 5,
2000; June 4 and 27, 2001; February 19 and November 7, 2002; June 23, 2005, and
*
Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez, due to reasons of force majeur, was unable to attend the 91st Regular
Period of Sessions, and consequently, did not participate in the deliberation and signing of this Order. Judge
Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national, recused himself from hearing this case in accordance with Articles
19(2) of the Court’s Statute and 19 of its Rules of Procedure.

Select target paragraph3