Order of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
of November 17, 2004
Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru
(Monitoring Compliance with Judgment)

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The January 31, 2001 Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”), in which it:
1.
f[ound] that the State violated the right to a fair trial embodied in Article 8 of the
American Convention on Human Rights, with regard to Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo
Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano.
2.
f[ound] that the State violated the right to judicial protection embodied in Article
25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, with regard to Manuel Aguirre Roca,
Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano.
3.
f[ound] that the State failed to comply with the general obligation of Article 1(1)
of the American Convention on Human Rights, with regard to the violation of the
substantive rights indicated in the previous operative paragraphs of th[e] judgment.
4.
decide[d] that the State [should] order an investigation to determine the persons
responsible for the human rights violations referred to in th[e] judgment and also publish
the results of this investigation and punish those responsible.
5.
decide[d] that the State [should] pay the amounts corresponding to the arrears
of salary and other benefits that, by law, correspond to Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo
Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano […].
6.
decide[d] that, in fairness, the State [should] reimburse the victims in the instant
case, for costs and expenses […] the following amounts: Manuel Aguirre Roca,
US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Peruvian
money when the payment is made; Guillermo Rey Terry, US$25,000.00 (twenty-five
thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Peruvian money when the payment is
made; and Delia Revoredo Marsano, US$35,000.00 (thirty-five thousand United States
dollars) or the equivalent in Peruvian money when the payment is made.
7.
decide[d] that it will monitor that th[e] judgment is complied with and only then
w[ould] it close the case.

2.
The November 27, 2003 Order of the Court on compliance with the judgment
in the instant case, in Whereas seven and eight of which it ordered:
7.
[…] in supervising comprehensive compliance with the judgments on the merits
and on reparations issued in the instant case, and after analyzing the information
supplied by the State, by the victims, and by the Inter-American Commission, the Court
[…] verif[ied] that the State ha[d] paid the compensations for legal costs and expenses
of the victims before the Court, pursuant to operative paragraph six of the Judgment on
reparations.

Select target paragraph3