Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Case of La Cantuta v. Perú
Judgment of November 29, 2006
(Merits, Reparations and Costs)

In the case of La Cantuta,
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the
Court”), composed of the following judges:*
Sergio García-Ramírez, President;
Alirio Abreu-Burelli, Vicepresident;
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, Judge;
Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, Judge;
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Judge; and
Fernando Vidal-Ramírez, Judge ad hoc.
Also present,
Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri, Secretary; and
Emilia Segares-Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary;
Pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles 29, 31, 53(2), 55,
56, and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”),
delivers the following Judgment.

On February 14, 2006, pursuant to Articles 50 and 61 of the American Convention,
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the
Inter-American Commission”) filed an application before the Court against the State of Perú
(hereinafter the “the State” or “the Peruvian State”), originated in Petition No. 11,045 and
received by the Secretariat of the Commission on July 30, 1992. In the application the

Judge Oliver Jackman informed the Court, that, for reasons beyond his will, he would not be able to attend
the LXXIII Regular Session, wherefore he did not take part in the deliberation and passing of this Judgment. Judge
Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national, excused himself from hearing this case, pursuant to Article 19(2) of the
Statute of the Court and Article 19 of its Rules of Procedure, since in his capacity as practicing Minister of Justice of
Perú in 2001 he was a party to the instant case as Agent of the Peruvian State during its proceeding before the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Therefore, on March 31, 2006 the Secretariat informed the State
that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 10 of the Statute of the Court and Article 18 of its Rules of Procedure, it
was entitled to appoint a judge ad hoc who would take part in the consideration of the case, to which purpose the
State appointed Fernando Vidal-Ramírez.

Select target paragraph3