ORDER OF THE


INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF FEBRUARY 5, 2013
CASE OF BAENA RICARDO ET AL. v. PANAMA

MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The Judgment on merits, reparations and costs delivered by the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) on February
2, 2001 (hereinafter “the Judgment”), concerning the dismissal of 270 employees of
different State companies based on the application of Law 25 of December 14, 1990, in
violation of the principle of legality and non-retroactivity, of guarantees of due process, and
of freedom of association.
2.
The Orders on monitoring compliance with the Judgment issued by the InterAmerican Court on June 21 and November 22, 2002, June 6, 2003, November 28, 2005,
October 30, 2008, July 1, 2009, May 28, 2010, February 22, 2011, and June 28, 2012. In
the latter, the Court declared as follows:
1.
In accordance with the provisions of considering paragraphs 12 to 16 of this Order, the State
has complied with the final disbursement stipulated in the agreements in relation to 264 victims or
heirs of the 269 persons who signed the agreements, and has forwarded the corresponding receipts.
2.
In accordance with the provisions of considering paragraph 21 of this Order, the State has
complied by forwarding the vouchers of the guarantee certificates issued for the fourth and final
payment corresponding to the victim who has still not signed the agreement, to the victim who,
despite having signed it, has not withdrawn any of the four payments, and to the victim who signed
the agreement on January 27, 2012.
3.
In accordance with considering paragraphs 16 and 24, the procedure for monitoring
compliance with the Judgment shall remain open until the Court receives: (a) the receipts for the
third payment made to the heirs of two victims; (b) the receipts for the fourth payment to the
beneficiary who is resident in Brazil, to the beneficiary for whom the required proof of payment has
not been forwarded, as well as the payment to the heirs of the victim who died after the third
payment was made.
AND DECIDE[D]:
[…]


Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez advised the Court that, for reasons beyond his control, he would be unable to
be present for the deliberation and signature of this Order.

Select target paragraph3