2
8.
[…] after analyzing the information supplied by the State, by the victims and by
the Inter-American Commission, the Court deem[ed] it indispensable for the State to
report to the Court on the following with respect to compliance:
f)
the outcome of the investigation to identify and punish the persons
responsible for the human rights violations committed against the victims in
this case […] (Operative paragraph four of the November 27, 2003 Judgment);
and
b)
payment of the back pay and other benefits owed, according to
domestic legislation, to Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia
Revoredo Marsano (Operative paragraph five of the November 27, 2003
Judgment).

In this regard, the Court decided:
6.

To urge the State to take such measures as m[ight] be necessary to make
those reparations ordered in the January 31, 2001 Judgment with which
compliance [wa]s pending effective and to promptly comply with them,
pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

3.
The April 2, 2004 brief, in which the State asserted that a complaint regarding
the facts of the instant case was transferred to the Prosecutor’s Office Specializing in
Unlawful Enrichment and Constitutional Complaints on September 4, 2002. On April
1, 2003, according to a March 29, 2003 order, said complaint was forwarded to the
Congress of the Republic, and it was subsequently transferred to the Presidency of
Congress. On April 23, 2003 the Directorate ordered said complaint shelved, and up
to the date when the brief by the State was drafted, there had been no report on
what was agreed. However, the State expressed that it would ask Congress to
reconsider said decision, given the judgment by the Court. The State also reported
that it had requested –and would do so once again- that the necessary
administrative steps be taken to effect “the payment ordered in the judgment of the
Court” through the Special Fund for Management of Monies Unlawfully Obtained to
the Detriment of the State, bearing in mind the provisions of Law No. 27,775, which
regulates the procedure to implement judgments issued by international courts.
4.
The May 18, 2004 brief, in which Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur reported
that Guillermo Rey Terry, one of the victims in the instant case, died on May 2,
2004.
5.
The May 25, 2004 brief in which Manuel Aguirre Roca stated that there had
been no progress in the investigation, identification, and punishment of those
responsible for the violation of the human rights of the three justices. On the other
hand, regarding payment of the back pay and other benefits due to them, Mr.
Aguirre Roca explained that the amount of compensation set by the State was based
on Law No. 27,775. However, he deemed that said law is not pertinent, as it did not
exist when the Court issued the January 31, 2001 Judgment. Therefore, the
intention to subject payment to said law is unacceptable, as it “eludes” payment of
the interest that should be paid after the sixth month, since once that term expired,
the State should have deposited the amount, guaranteeing payment of the interest.
Therefore, he concluded that payment of the compensation cannot be subject to or
conditioned by said Law; instead, payment should be made in accordance with the
provision in force at the time said Judgment was issued.
6.
The June 14, 2004 brief, in which the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”)

Select target paragraph3