- 10 the Court recalls that a request for interpretation may be used as an attempt to
broaden the scope of reparations ordered in a timely fashion (supra para 13).
29. Therefore, and in accordance with Articles 67 of the American Convention and
31(3) and 68 of its Rules of Procedure, this Court considers that the representative's
request is inadmissible, insofar as it seeks an expansion or modification of the
measures of reparation ordered in the judgment. Notwithstanding the foregoing and to
the extent that it could contribute to the clarity of the operative paragraphs of the
judgment or of the considerations that affect its operative part (supra para 12), the
Court considers it pertinent to make certain clarifications as to the measures of
reparation ordered in the judgment. In this regard, the Court recalls that repairing the
damage caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever
possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the
previously existing situation. However, in its consistent case law, the Court has
highlighted that when full restitution is not feasible, it will determine measures to
guarantee the violated rights and repair the consequences that the infractions
produced.13
30. This highlights the fact that it is not always possible to restore the situation to that
existing prior to the violation. The time that has elapsed or the succession of other facts
that did not violate the Convention may make it impossible to restore the situation of
the victim to the that existing immediately prior to the violation or prevent the effects
and consequences of the violating situation from being completely eliminated. In the
case at hand, the Court considered that it was not possible to restore the situation of
violation to the immediately previous situation. As established in paragraph 270 of the
judgment, the Court “ha[d] no evidence that would permit it to conclude that the failure
to provide the reasoning for the 1993 judgment of nullity would have the effect of
rendering the acquittal delivered previously in favor of Ms. J. final and non-appealable."
Likewise, as established in paragraph 413 of the judgment,14 the effects of the
violations found in this judgment on the criminal proceedings underway against Ms. J.
must be determined. Contrary to the Commission's allegations, the Court finds that it is
not its responsibility to clarify the specific effects of said violations, but rather that they
must be determined in accordance with the domestic criminal law.
31. In response to the representative's question, as to what would be the legal
consequence of the violations derived from the Supreme Court's December 27, 1993,
judgment, the Court recalls, first of all, that its judgment constitutes, per se, a form of
reparation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it points out that, given the impossibility of
restoring Ms. J.'s situation to that existing prior to issuing said internal judgment, in the
case at hand, this Court ordered various substitute measures of reparation. In this
sense, the Court recalls that in order to repair the violations of due process, including
the improper reasoning of the judgment that annulled the acquittal of Ms. J., the Court
ordered the publication and dissemination of the judgment and the respective official
Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989.
Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador Merits, Reparations and Costs.
Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 175.
13
In paragraph 413 of the judgment, the Court ordered that “the State must ensure that the proceedings
against Ms. J. observe all the requirements of due process of law with full guarantees of a hearing and
defense for the accused and, to this end, the State must take into account the Court’s conclusions in
Chapters VIII and IX of this judgment and ensure that the violations of due process verified in them are not
repeated, and also, if appropriate, determine the effects of the violations found in this judgment on the
criminal proceedings underway against Ms. J.” Case of J. v. Peru Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations
and Costs, supra, para. 413.
14