ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT
OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF NOVEMBER 28, 2003
BARRIOS ALTOS CASE
COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT
HAVING SEEN:
1.
The judgment on merits delivered in the Barrios Altos case by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”) of March 14, 2001, in
which it decided, unanimously:
1.

To admit the State’s recognition of international responsibility.

2.
To find, in accordance with the terms of the State’s recognition of international
responsibility, that it had violated:
a)

The right to life embodied in Article 4 of the American Convention on
Human Rights, 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;

b)

The right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, with regard to Natividad Condorcahuana
Chicaña, Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega and Alfonso Rodas
Alvítez; and

c)

The right to a fair trial and judicial protection embodied in Articles 8
and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, with regard to
the next of kin of 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, Benedicta Yanque Churo, and with regard to Natividad
Condorcahuana Chicaña, Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega and
Alfonso Rodas Alvítez, as a result of the promulgation and application
of Amnesty Laws No. 26479 and No. 26492.

3.
To find, in accordance with the terms of the State’s recognition of international
responsibility, that the State failed to comply with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American
Convention on Human Rights as a result of the promulgation and application of Amnesty
Laws No. 26479 and No. 26492 and the violation of the articles of the Convention
mentioned in operative paragraph 2 of [the] judgment.
4.
To find that Amnesty Laws No. 26479 and No. 26492 are incompatible with the
American Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, lack legal effect.
5.
To find that the State of Peru should investigate the facts to determine the
identity of those responsible for the human rights violations referred to in [the]
judgment, and also publish the results of this investigation and punish those responsible.
6.
To order that reparations sh[ould] be established by mutual agreement between
the defendant State, the Inter-American Commission and the victims, their next of kin or

Select target paragraph3