- 13 identifying himself as "Lawyer of the Special Prosecutor's Office for Terrorist Crimes" in
the State's answering brief and "Advisor to the Prosecutor" in his corresponding
resume.19 Therefore, in application of Article 76 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, this
Court proceeds to rectify the name of Mr. Federico Javier Llaque Moya's position
contained in paragraph 268 of the judgment. Therefore, it is clearly established that
the deponent, for informational purposes, acted as "Lawyer of the Specialized
Prosecutor's Office for Terrorist Crimes."
38. Regarding the request for clarification of paragraph 87 of the judgment,20 the
representative pointed out that in said paragraph a material error was incurred in that
Ms. J.'s mother and sister were not taken to the Las Esmeraldas building but to the
building on Casimiro Negrón Street. This Court notes that the statement of Ms. J.'s
mother, used as evidence in this case, is not very clear as to the sequence of events
and the places where they were and where they went or took them. However, in view
of what was indicated by the representative on this occasion and in application of
Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court considers it pertinent to rectify the
reference to the Las Esmeraldas property in paragraph 87 of the judgment in such a
way as to reflect that the mother of Ms. J. and her sister were taken “to the property
where she had [her] business,” as Ms. J.'s mother put it in her statement.
39. For the purposes of the eventual publication and dissemination of the judgment,
it is ordered that the parties and the Commission be sent a corrected version of the
judgment with the pertinent rectification of the material errors found (supra paras. 37
and 38). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court recalls that, in accordance with
Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure, an interpretation shall not suspend the effect of
the judgment, for which the terms established in the judgment must be counted from
the notification of the original version of said decision, which in this case is December
23, 2013, taking into account that the rectifications made do not affect the State's
complying with the reparation measures established therein.
40. Meanwhile, the Court indicates that, in addition to the rectification of a material
error in paragraph 87 of the judgment (supra para 38), the representative requested
clarification of its “implication” in the Court's reasoning in paragraph 147 of the
judgment. This Court recalls that, when issuing its ruling in this case, it determined
that the State did not violate the right to protection of Ms. J.'s home, with respect to
this first search of the building on Casimiro Negrón Street, stating the following:
146. With regard to the first search of the house located on Casimiro Negrón Street, the Court
notes that, according to the search record, it was carried out with the authorization of J.’s
mother, who signed the said record. J.’s mother indicated that “[t]hey wanted her to sign some
papers. They said that they were papers that had been seized; there was a list.” She also stated
that her younger daughter had refused to sign the record and had therefore been arrested. The
State did not question the truth of the statement made by Ms. J.’s mother, while the refusal of
J.’s younger sister to sign the record and her arrest appear in the file of this case (supra paras.
87 and 89). Meanwhile, at the domestic level, the presumed victim declared that her mother had
been coerced to sign a record,247 and this could correspond to the assertion of the CVR that
Cf. State's answering brief (merits file, folio 521) and Mr. Federico Javier Llaque Moya's resume (file of
annexes to the answering brief, annex 67, folio 4275).
19
Paragraph 87 of the judgment provides: “According to J.’s mother, a neighbor of the building on Las
Esmeraldas Street advised her that “some thieves had forced their way into the property.” When J.’s mother
was on the way to the building accompanied by J.’s younger sister, they were “assaulted by two men who
forced them into a car,” and drove them to the building on Las Esmeraldas Street. J.’s mother indicated
that, when they arrived, she was told that her “daughter had resisted and [they had] killed her.” Case of J.
v. Peru Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 87.
20