Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights  of April 3, 2009 Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú (Monitoring Compliance with Judgment) HAVING SEEN: 1. The Judgment on merits issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”, “the Inter-American Court”, or “the Tribunal”) on November 3, 1997 in the Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú, through which it DECIDES: unanimously 1. That the State of Perú violated the right to personal liberty recognized in Article 7 of the American Convention Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez. […] 2. That the State of Perú violated the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez. […] 3. That the State of Perú violated the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez. […] 4. That the State of Perú violated the right to effective recourse to a competent national court or tribunal, recognized in Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez and his next-of-kin. […] 5. That the State of Perú is obliged to repair the consequences of those violations and compensate the victim's next-of-kin and reimburse them for any expenses they may have incurred in their representations to the Perúvian authorities in connection with this case, for which purpose the proceeding remains open. 2. The Judgment on reparations issued by the Inter-American Court on November 27, 1998 in the present case, through which it DECIDED: unanimously, 1. To set the reparations that the State shall pay to the next of kin of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez at US$245,021.80 (two hundred forty-five thousand twenty-one United States dollars and eighty cents) or its equivalent in local currency. The State is to make  Judge Diego García-Sayán, of Perúvian nationality, excused himself from hearing the present case, pursuant with Articles 19(2) of the Statute and 20 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (partially reformed in its LXXXII Regular Session, held on January 19-31, 2009), reason for which he did not participate in the deliberation of the present Order.

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3