-8December 27, 1993, decision,” which violates the Convention. It added that “it could
help in the effectiveness of compliance with the judgment if these factual and legal
conclusions were reflected more precisely in paragraph 413, since said paragraph could
be interpreted in a generic sense, and based on that, the authorities that continue
hearing the case have the discretion of determining the effects of decisions by the
Inter-American Court.” It indicated that due to “the very particular situation generated
by the December 27, 1993, decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, without which
the criminal proceeding against Ms. J. could not continue, the Commission agrees with
the necessity that the consequences of the Court's determinations regarding said
judicial decision be clearly established in paragraph 413 of the judgment so that they
can be implemented by the domestic authorities.”
Considerations of the Court
25. The Court points out that the representative requested clarification on the
consequences of paragraph 227 of the judgment. Said paragraph 227, which the
representative cites in an isolated manner, forms part of the considerations of the Court
regarding the improper motivation and violation of the presumption of innocence by
virtue of the judgment of the "faceless” Supreme Court of Justice that annulled the
acquittal of Ms. J. Therefore, this Court understands that the representative requested
clarification of the consequences, in terms of reparations, of violation of the judicial
guarantee of the reasoning and the presumption of innocence derived from said
decision.
26. Regarding the representative's request for specific clarification, this Court
emphasizes that the considerations contained in paragraph 227 of the judgment
respond, in particular, to the State's allegation that the December 27, 1993, decision of
had ceased to have any effect. Therefore, no ruling was necessary in this regard. In this
sense, the Court recalls that in its judgment, it established that:
225. In the instant case, after Ms. J. had been acquitted by the Lima Higher Court of Justice on
June 18, 1993, the “faceless” Supreme Court of Justice declared that the judgment of December
27, 1993, acquitting her was null and void, and ordered that “a new oral hearing be held by
another Special Criminal Chamber” (supra paras. 102 and 105). In said decision it only reads
that:
Considerations: pursuant to the report of the prosecutor and considering, also, that the
judgment that is being appealed does not make a proper evaluation of the facts that are the
subject of the indictment and does not assess the evidence provided adequately in order to
establish the innocence or guilt of those accused; that, on the other hand, with regard to
the accused who have been convicted, it has not be determined specifically for each of them
the pertinent article of the law applicable to their case, so that […] the judgment appealed
was declared null and void […]; and it was ordered that a new oral hearing be held by
another Special Criminal Chamber […].
226. The Court notes that the said judgment of December 1993 contains no other factual or legal
elements that provide information on the reasons for the ruling. In this regard, the Court notes
that Ms. J. was indicted in proceedings where she was charged together with another 93 persons
(supra, para. 101). The judgment of the Lima Higher Court of Justice of June 18, 1993, which
acquitted Ms. J., convicted 11 of the accused, acquitted 17, and held in reserve the proceedings
against another 65 persons (supra para. 102). However, the ruling that declared this judgment
null and void in December that year, did not specify with regard to whom the evidence had been
assessed improperly or an undue evaluation had been made of the facts that were the subject of
the indictment; it did not establish the legal basis based on which the nullity was declared or the
reason why it was in order. This absence of reasoning and grounds in the judgment of the
Supreme Court meant that it was impossible for Ms. J. to defend herself adequately so as to be
able to contest it or appeal against it in order to enforce the acquittal delivered in her favor.
227. The Court emphasizes that, although the decision of the “faceless” Supreme Court did not