of the right to humane treatment because of violations perpetrated against the inmates who survived the massacre after May 9, 1992, when they were taken to the Police Hospital and transferred to other prisons. Three inmates suffered further violations due to the lack of pre and postnatal medical care, one inmate was raped, and six other inmates were subjected to sexual violence. Additionally, the Court found that the State had committed violations against the personal integrity of certain next of kin of the inmates for the treatment by the authorities when they were searching for information regarding what had happened. The Court declared the State’s responsibility for the violations of the right to a fair trial (judicial guarantees) and judicial protection of the immediate family members of the deceased identified inmates, the surviving inmates, and the next of kin of those inmates named and identified in the Judgment. The Court held that its Judgment is per se a form of reparation and additionally ordered the State to provide certain measures of reparation (infra operative paragraph 1) and indicated that it will monitor the full compliance with the Judgment. 2. The Judgment of Interpretation of the Merits, Reparations, and Costs issued on August 2, 2008 3 (hereinafter “the Interpretation of the Judgment”). 3. The Order of April 28, 2009, 4 wherein the Court declared, inter alia, that the State had not complied with its obligation to report to the Court on the measures required to satisfy compliance with that stated in the Judgment, and that it would keep the proceedings for monitoring of compliance open in regard to all the operative paragraphs of the Judgment. The briefs of the State of August 3, 2007, August 4, 2009, and its annexes, and July 26, and October 6, 2010, wherein, respectively, it provided “information regarding [the] compliance with the obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish,” it requested that the Court ‘‘summon a hearing on the monitoring of compliance,” and filed a report on “the steps being carried out by [the] [Specialized] Office of the Public Prosecutor [of the Ministry of Justice] as to compliance with the Judgment.” 4. 5. The briefs of Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta, victim and common intervening party of the representatives of the victims and their next of kin (hereinafter “common intervener Feria Tinta” or “Mrs. Feria Tinta”) of April 27, October 1, November 17, and December 4, 2009, and March 2, April 11, May 26, October 13, and November 6, 2010, wherein the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment was mentioned. 6. The briefs of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) of September 1, and November 23, 2010, in relation to the monitoring of compliance with this case. 7. The Order of the acting President of the Court in this case (hereinafter “the acting President”) of December 21, 2010 5, wherein it was decided, inter alia, to summon the State, security prison to another women’s prison. Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, paras. 210 to 216. 3 Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 2, 2008, Series C No. 181, para. 57. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriesc_181_esp.pdf 4 Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of April 28, 2009. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/castro_28_04_09.pdf 5 Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/castro_21_12_10.pdf 2

Select target paragraph3