ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2006• CASE OF HUILCA-TECSE V. PERU MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT HAVING SEEN: 1. The Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs delivered on March 3, 2005 (hereinafter “the Judgment”) by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”), whereby it: DECID[ED]: unanimously, 1. To admit the State’s acquiescence of September 7, 2004, in the terms of paragraphs 63, 79 and 83 of [the] Judgment. 2. To endorse partially the agreement on the methods and time limits for complying with the reparations signed on December 6, 2004, between the State and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin, in the terms of paragraphs 40 to 58, 92, 95, 100, 111 to 116, 118 and 119 of the […] Judgment. DECLAR[ED]: unanimously that: 1. The dispute relating to the facts that gave rise to this case ha[d] ceased. According to the terms of the State’s acquiescence, the latter violated the rights 2. embodied in Articles 4(1) (Right to Life) and 16 (Freedom of Association) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Pedro Huilca Tecse, in the terms of paragraphs 64 to 79 of the […] Judgment. 3. According to the terms of the State’s acquiescence, the latter violated the rights embodied in Articles 8 (Right to Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Pedro Huilca Tecse: Martha Flores Gutiérrez, the victim’s companion; his children, Pedro Humberto Huilca Gutiérrez, Flor de María Huilca Gutiérrez, Katiuska Tatiana Huilca Gutiérrez, José Carlos Huilca Flores, and Indira Isabel Huilca Flores, and also of Julio César Escobar Flores, the victim’s stepson and son of Martha Flores Gutiérrez, in the terms of paragraphs 80 to 83 of [the] Judgment. […] AND ORDER[ED]: unanimously, that: • Judge Oliver Jackman did not take part in the deliberations on and signing of this Order as he advised the Court that, for reasons beyond his control, he would be unable to be present at the Seventysecond Regular Session of the Court.