Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Case of Acevedo-Buendía et al.
(“Discharged and Retired Employees of the
Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru
Judgment of November 24, 2009
(Interpretation of the Judgment on the
Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs)

In the case Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the
Comptroller”),
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court,” “the
Court,” or “the Tribunal”), composed of the following judges:1
Cecilia Medina Quiroga, President;
Sergio García Ramírez, Judge;
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge;
Margarette May Macaulay, Judge;
Rhadys Abreu Blondet, Judge, and
Víctor Oscar Shiyín García Toma, ad hoc Judge;
also present,
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and
Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary;
in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Convention” or the “American Convention”) and Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), 2 decides the following request for interpretation
of the Judgment on the preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs issued by the
Tribunal on July 1, 2009, in the present case (hereinafter “the Judgment”), submitted by the
State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) on November 3, 2009.

Judge Leonardo A. Franco informed the Court that, for reasons of force majeure, he would not be able to
participate in the deliberation and signing of the present Judgment. The judge ad hoc Víctor Oscar Shiyín García
Toma did not participate in the deliberation and signing of the present Judgment, but when consulted on the
matter, he expressed his conformity on what was decided by the Court. The Judge Diego García-Sayán, of peruvian
nationality, excused himself from hearing the present case, in conformity with Articles 19(2) of the Statute and 19
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
1

2

In accordance with Article 72(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure currently in force, whose last reforms
entered into force on March 24, 2009, “[c]ases pending resolution shall be processed according to the provisions of
these Rules of Procedure, except for those cases in which a hearing has already been convened upon the entry into
force of these Rules of Procedure; such cases shall be governed by the provisions of the previous Rules of
Procedure.” Thus, the Rules of Procedure mentioned in the present Judgment of Interpretation are those approved
by the Tribunal during its XLIX Ordinary Period of Sessions, held November 16 to 25, 2000, and partially reformed
by the Court during its LXI Ordinary Period of Sessions, held from November 20 to December 4, 2003.

Select target paragraph3