2
Hurtado submitted his observations on the report filed by the State (supra Having
Seen clause No. 7) and requested again that the Court hold a hearing.
9.
The writ of January 20, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”)
presented its observations on the report submitted by the State (supra Having
Seen clause No. 7.)
10.
The private hearing held by the Court at its venue in San Jose, Costa Rica,
on February 1, 2010.1
CONSIDERING:
1.
That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court
is to monitor compliance with its decisions.
2.
That Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter,
the “American Convention”) on July 28, 1978, and recognized the contentious
jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981.
3.
That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth 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.” The treaty obligations of the States Parties are
binding for all the powers and functions of the States.2
4.
That by virtue of the definite and not subject to appeal nature of the Court
judgments, according to what is set forth in Article 67 of the American Convention,
these must be immediately and completely fulfilled by the State.
5.
That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments
corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the
State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must
comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda)
and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of
its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.3

1
Pursuant to Article 62 of the Rules of Procedures, the Court held the hearing together with the
following commission of Judges: Judge Manuel Ventura-Robles, Judge Margarette May Macaulay, Judge
Rhadys Abreu-Blondet and Judge Eduardo Vio-Grossi. The following parties were present at the hearing:
by the Inter-American Commission, Lilly Ching and Silvia Serrano; Gustavo Adolfo Cesti-Hurtado; by the
representatives, attorneys Alberto Borea-Odría and Julio Silva-Santiesteban, and Carmen Cardó de
Cesti, and by the State, attorneys Delia Muñoz and Erika Ramos, attorneys César San Martín and
Stephen Haas, Ambassador Moisés Tambini del Valle, Gustavo Lembcke, Minister of the Peruvian
Embassy in Costa Rica, and David Tejada, First Secretary of the Peruvian Embassy in Costa Rica.
2

Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003,
Series C No. 104, para. 60; Caso of La Cantuta v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2009, Considering clause No. 5, and Case
of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2009, Considering clause No. 5.
3
Cf. International responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of laws in violation of the
Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of
December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Monitoring
Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009,
Considering clauses No. 6, and Case of Ivcher-Brostein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment.
Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause No. 5.

Select target paragraph3