-36175. As regards of the instant case, it is worth noting that during the proceeding
before the Commission, Peru acknowledged its international responsiblity on July 22,
2002, after the issuance of the Report on Admissibility, and it repeated such
acknowledgment on January 17, 2003, after the issuance of the Report on the Merits
(supra para. 152 and 154), and a “Working Commission” was established to prepare
a final solution proposal in the case. In its pleading of July 22, 2002 the State alleged
that it could not afford the compensations and the further reparation measures
sought by the petitioners as a result of the economic crisis it was undergoing. Based
on such acknowledgment and owing to the failure by the State to comply with the
recommendations of the Report on the Merits, the Commission decided to refer the
instant case to the Court.
176. In line with prior decisions, this Court takes the view that, once a State has
adopted a position producing certain legal effects, may not, under the principle of
estoppel, later assume a position in contradiction to the former one and changing the
state of affairs upon which the other party relied.19 The general principle of estoppel
has been recognized and applied both in general international law and in the
international law of human rights.20 This Court has applied such principle both to
reject objections raised by a state before the Court when the state had failed to raise
such defenses in the proceeding before the Commission, and to grant full effects to
the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State or to an agreement entered
into by such State which it purported to disavow in subsequent stages of the
proceeding.21 The European Court on Human Rights has also applied the principle of
estoppel with respect to objections concerning jurisdiction and admissibility raised
belatedly by the States.22
177. In the instant case, each act of acknowledgment made by Peru before the
Commission created estoppel. Therefore, by admitting the legitimacy of the claim
asserted in the proceeding before the Commission through a unilateral juristic act of
acknowledgement, Peru is barred from adopting a contradictory position thereafter.
The alleged victims and their representatives, as well as the Inter-American
Commission, acted in the proceeding before the latter body on the basis of the
position of acknowledgment taken up by the State.
19
Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 3, para. 58; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note
16, para. 56; and Case of Neira Alegría et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 11, 1991.
Series C No. 13, para. 29.
20
Cf. Case concerning the Territorial Dispute (Lybia/Chad), I.C.J Reports 1994, Judgment of 13
February 1994, paras. 56, 68, 75; Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), I.C.J Reports 1974, paras. 42-46;
and Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), I.C.J Reports 1962, Judgment of
15 June 1962, para. 32.
21
Cf. Case of Gómez-Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 36; Case
of Huilca Tecse, supra note 16, para. 54–59; and Case of the Caracazo. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the
American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 52; Case of
Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections, supra note 4, para. 57; and Case of
Durand and Ugarte. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 38.
22
Cf. Mizzi v. Malta, No. 26111/02 (Sect 1)(Eng), § 43-48, E.C.H.R (12/01/2006); Tuquabo- tekle
and others v. The Netherlands, (preliminary objections) No. 60665/00, § 26-32, E.C.H.R (1/12/ 2005);
Artico v. Italy (preliminary objections) (13/05/1980) § 25- 28, E.C.H.R, Series A No. 37; y De Wilde,
Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, § 58-59, E.C.H.R (18/06/1971), Series A No. 12.