Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Case of Radilla-Pacheco v. Mexico
Judgment of November 23, 2009
(Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs)

In the case of Radilla-Pacheco,
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”, “the
Court”, or “the Tribunal”), constituted by the following judges ∗:
Cecilia Medina Quiroga, President
Diego García-Sayán, Vice-President;
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge;
Margarette May Macaulay, Judge; and,
Rhadys Abreu Blondet, Judge.
also, present,
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and
Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary,
pursuant with Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention of Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and with Articles 30, 32,
38(6), 56(2), 58, 59, and 61 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court1 (hereinafter “the Rules
of Procedure”), issues the present Judgment.
I
INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND OBJECT OF CONTROVERSY
1.
On March 15, 2008, pursuant with that stated in Articles 51 and 61 of the American
Convention, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the
∗

On May 4, 2008 Judge Sergio García Ramírez presented his self-disqualification to participate in the
present case “due to the fact that he is a national of the accused State.” In this sense he expressed that “the good
performance of the jurisdictional duties does not fall only upon the integrity and capacity of the judge – which of
course are necessary -, but also on the assessment made on those. Be, but also seem.” Through a note of May 9,
2008 the President of the Tribunal stated that she “in general terms share[d]” the position of Judge García Ramírez
and accepted his self-disqualification. Therefore, through a note of May 9, 2008 the State was informed about the
mentioned self-disqualification and it was asked its opinion on the potential appointment of a judge ad hoc who
would intervene in the hearing and decision of this case. At the same time, the State was informed that the
Tribunal had received and was examining arguments in the sense that the institution of the judge ad hoc would
only be appropriate in inter-state contentious cases. On May 14, 2008 the Commission forwarded the brief titled
“Position of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights regarding the figure of the judge ad hoc.” The State
did not appoint a judge ad hoc. On the other hand, the judge Leonardo A. Franco informed the Court that, due to
reasons of force majeure, he could not participate in the deliberation and signing of the present Judgment.
1

Pursuant with the stipulations of Article 72(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court
approved in its XLIX Regular Session, held from November 16 to 25, 2000, partially reformed by the Court in its
LXXXII Regular Session, held from January 19th to 31, 2009, and in force since March 24, 2009.

Select target paragraph3