6.

The private hearing held on June 22, 2012.1

CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance
with its decisions.
2.
Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since March 24, 1981 and
recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. Furthermore, it
ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on April 9,
2002.
3.
Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the
Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they
are parties.” To this end, States must ensure the domestic implementation of the provisions
set forth in the Court’s rulings.2
4.
The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional
provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal
systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights
treaties (i.e. those addressing protected rights) but also to procedural provisions, such as
those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be
interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical
and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3
5.
In the briefs submitted by the State and the representatives, as well as during the
private hearing held in the instant case (supra Having Seen 6), the parties referred in
detail, inter alia, to the status of compliance with the obligation to pay the amounts
awarded as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the

1

This hearing was attended by the following: on behalf of the United Mexican States, Lic. Max Alberto
Diener Sala, Undersecretary of Judicial Affairs and Human Rights of the Secretariat of The Interior; Mr. Alejandro
Alday González, Assistant Director General of Cases, Democracy and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign
Relations; Lic. Sergio Roberto Huerta Patoni, Coordinator of Advisors of the Undersecretary of Judicial Affairs and
Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior; Lic. Jorge Cruz Becerra, Director of International Cooperation with
International Human Rights Organizations of the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic; Lic. Jose Roberto Ríos
Vázquez, Area Director of the Attorney General’s Office; Counselor Martha Eugenia Tapia Benavides, Business
Attaché a.i. of the Embassy of Mexico in Costa Rica; Third Secretary Rafael Barcelo Durazo, Coordinator of Political
Affairs and Human Rights of the Embassy of Mexico in Costa Rica, and Mr. Juan Pablo Alemán Izaguirre, Deputy
Director for Assistance to Civil Society Organizations of the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights of
the Ministry of the Interior. On behalf of the victims’ representatives: Tita Radilla Martinez; Octavio Amezcua
Noriega; Isis Nohemi Goldberg Hernandez; and Valeria Moscoso Urzúa. On behalf of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights: Rosa Maria Ortiz, Commissioner and Silvia Serrano Guzman, Specialist of the
Executive Secretariat.

2
Cf. Case Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60;
and Case Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2012, Considering paragraph 3.
3
Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia,
supra note 2, Considering paragraph 6.

2

Select target paragraph3