The brief of August 4, 2011, wherein, after an extension that was granted, Peru
indicated that it requested information from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Judiciary
on the whereabouts of Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez, and that once the requested
information was received, it would inform the Court on the matter.
The note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of August 17,
2011, wherein, pursuant to instructions by the President-in-Office of this case and in
accordance with that which was expressed by the State (supra Having Seen clause 3),
Peru was granted until September 16, 2011, to present information on the measures
adopted to “determine the whereabouts of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez.”
The brief of September 5, 2011, wherein the representatives of the victims
(hereinafter “the representatives”) provided their observations to that which was expressed
by the State. (supra Having Seen clause 3).
The notes of the Secretariat of February 15 and May 24, 2012, wherein, once the
State’s period lapsed, Peru was requested to provide a State brief as quickly as possible,
and the note of the Secretariat of April 8, 2013, wherein the same request regarding
submission of a State brief was reiterated, to be provided by no later than June 10, 2013.
Lastly, the note of the Secretariat of August 20, 2013, wherein, among other things, the
request was made to the State once again to submit a State brief by no later than October
21, 2013. The State did not present the requested information.
One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to
monitor compliance with its decisions.
Peru became a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978 and
acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981.
As established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully
and promptly with the judgments of the Court. Also, 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, the State
must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments. 1
The obligation to fulfill that provided by the Court includes the State’s duty to inform the
Court of the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court. The prompt
implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each aspect ordered
by the Court is being fulfilled is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with
the Judgment as a whole. 2

Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No.
104, para. 60, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering clause three.


Cf. Case of Five Pensioners V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause four, and Case of the Saramaka People V.


Select target paragraph3