Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala
Judgment of November 27, 2003
(Merits, Reparations and Costs)

In the Maritza Urrutia case,
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the InterAmerican Court”), composed of the following judges∗:
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, President
Sergio García Ramírez, Vice President
Hernán Salgado Pesantes, Judge
Máximo Pacheco Gómez, Judge
Alirio Abreu Burelli, Judge
Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo, Judge, and
Arturo Martínez Gálvez, Judge ad hoc;
also present∗∗,
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Secretary;
in accordance with Articles 29, 55, 56 and 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court
(hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”) and with Article 63(1) of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention or “the American
Convention”), delivers this judgment.
On January 9, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted to the
Court an application against the State of Guatemala (hereinafter “the State” or
“Guatemala”), resulting from petition No. 11,043, received by the Secretariat of the
Commission on July 28, 1992.
The Commission submitted the application based on Article 51 of the
American Convention, so that the Court could decide whether the State had violated
Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a
Fair Trial), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) and 25 (Judicial Protection), all
of them in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American
Convention, and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and

Judge Oliver Jackman abstained from taking part in the deliberation and signature of this
judgment, because he had participated in several stages of the case while it was being processed by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, when he was a member of the latter.
The Deputy Secretary, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, excused himself from participating, because
he had acted as assistant to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in this case, before
occupying his current position at the Court.

Select target paragraph3