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.