ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF MAY 17, 2010
XIMENES LOPES V. BRAZIL
MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT
HAVING SEEN:
1.
The judgment on merits, reparations and costs of July 4, 2006 (hereinafter “the
judgment”), delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Inter-American Court” or “the Court”).
2.
The Orders on monitoring compliance with judgment of May 2, 2008, and
September 21, 2009. In the latter, the Inter-American Court declared that it would
maintain open the procedure of monitoring compliance in relation to the operative
paragraphs that establish the State’s obligation to:
a)
Guarantee, within a reasonable time, that the domestic proceedings to investigate and, if
appropriate, punish those responsible for the facts of this case are effective (sixth operative
paragraph of the judgment), and
b)
Continue implementing an education and training program for the medical, psychiatric,
psychological, nursing, and nursing auxiliary personnel and for all those persons connected with the
provision of mental health care, in particular, with regard to the principles that should govern the
treatment of individuals with mental disabilities, in accordance with the international standards in
this regard and those established in the judgment (eighth operative paragraph of the judgment).

3.
The brief of January 29, 2010, and its attachment, in which the Federative
Republic of Brazil (hereinafter “the State” or “Brazil”) provided information on the
measures of reparation that remained pending.
4.
The briefs of September 22, 2009, and April 1, 2010, and their respective
attachments in with the representatives of the victim and his next of kin (hereinafter
“the representatives”) presented additional information on the case and submitted
their observations on the report presented by the State, respectively.
5.
The brief of May 11, 2010, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented
its observations on the State’s report and the observations of the representatives.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to
monitor compliance with its decisions.
2.
Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 25,
1992, and, pursuant to its Article 62, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court
on December 10, 1998.

Select target paragraph3