ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS*
OF MAY 19, 2011
CASE OF CASTILLO PÁEZ v. PERU
MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The judgments delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) in this case: on preliminary
objections on January 30, 1996; on merits on November 3, 1997 (hereinafter
“judgment on merits”), and on reparations and costs on November 27, 1998
(hereinafter “judgment on reparations”).
2.
The Orders on monitoring compliance with judgment issued by the Court on
June 1, 2001, November 27, 2002, November 27, 2003, December 17, 2004, and
April 3, 2009. In the latter, the Court declared, inter alia:
1.
That according to considering paragraphs 14 through 17 and 21 of th[e] Order, the
State of Peru has complied with the second operative paragraph of the judgment on
reparations delivered by the Court on November 27, 1998, regarding the obligation to
investigate, identify, and punish those responsible for the forced disappearance of the youth
Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez.
2.
That it will maintain open the procedure of supervising compliance as regards the
obligation to adopt available measures to determine the whereabouts of Ernesto Rafael
Castillo Páez, pursuant to considering paragraphs 21 and 23 of th[e] Order.
AND DECIDE[D]:
1.
To require the State of Peru to adopt all necessary measures to effectively and
promptly comply with the obligation indicated in the second operative paragraph, supra,
pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights,
which is binding for all the State powers and bodies.
2.
To request that the State of Peru present to the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, no later than July 15, 2009, a report indicating all the legal and administrative
measures, as well as all measures of any other nature, carried out by its authorities to
discover the whereabouts of the youth Ernesto Castillo Páez, in keeping with considering
paragraph 22 of the […] Order; and to require that the representatives of the victims and
the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights present their observations on the State’s
report within four and six weeks, respectively, of receiving it.
3.
To continue supervising compliance with the judgment on merits of November 3,
1997, and the judgment on reparations of November 27, 1998.
4.
To evaluate the possibility of holding a private hearing on monitoring compliance with
the judgments handed down in this case, of which the parties will be notified opportunely.
[…]

*
Judge Diego García-Sayan, a Peruvian national, recused himself from hearing this case; consequently
he did not take part in the deliberation of this Order.

Select target paragraph3