ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ∗
OF MARCH 31, 2014
CASE OF THE MIGUEL CASTRO CASTRO PRISON V. PERU
MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs (hereinafter “the Judgment”)
issued in this case by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court,”
“the Inter-American Court” or “the Tribunal”) on November 25, 2006. 1 Taking into
consideration the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the Republic of Peru
(“the State" or “Peru”) in this case, the Court determined that the State was internationally
responsible for violations of the rights to life and humane treatment for the massacre,
extrajudicial executions, and torture perpetrated between May 6 and May 9, 1992, in the
Miguel Castro Castro Prison against inmates located in cell blocks 1A and 4B, approximately
135 women and 450 men accused or sentenced for crimes of terrorism or treason, among
which there were pregnant women. The Court considered that it had not been proven that
there was a riot or other situation that warranted the legitimate use of force by State agents
when an “operative” action was carried out. To the contrary, the Court found that the
behavior of the security agents, senior State authorities and other State officials during the
four days of the so-called “Operative Transfer 1” as well as after this, demonstrate that this
involved a massacre, and that the purpose of said "operation" and subsequent handling of
inmates was to threaten the lives and integrity of the inmates in cell blocks 1A and 4B of the
Miguel Castro Castro Prison. 2 The Court also found Peru responsible for additional violations
∗
Judge Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national, did not participate in the deliberation and signature of the
judgment in this case, nor in the hearing and deliberation of this Order in accordance with the provisions of Article
19(2) of the Statute of the Court and 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure Court.
1
In the judgment on the Merits, reparations and costs, the Court declared that the State is internationally
responsible for the violation: i) the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in relation to Article 1(1) thereof it to the detriment of the 41 deceased inmates identified in Annex 1; ii) the right
to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Inter-American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1)
thereof, in conjunction with Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to
the detriment of the 41 identified deceased inmates and of the 496 surviving inmates, 185 of whom were injured;
iii) the right to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined, respectively, in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention,
in relation with Article 1(1) thereof, in conjunction with Article 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the
Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, and 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American
Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the next of kin of the 41 identified deceased inmates,
of the surviving inmates and of the next of kin of the inmates identified in Annex 3 of the Judgment, and iv) the
right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the
detriment of the next of kin of certain inmates identified in Annex 2 of the Judgment. The full text of the judgment
is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_181_ing.pdf
2
The State held that the events that occurred under the so-called "Operative Transfer 1," which according
to official sources intended the transfer of inmates who were in pavilion 1A of the Miguel Castro Castro maximum

Select target paragraph3