Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru Judgment of September 22, 2009 (Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs) In the case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Inter-American Court”, the “Court” or the “Tribunal”) composed of the following judges:1 Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, President; Sergio García Ramírez, Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge; Leonardo A. Franco, Judge; Margarette May Macaulay, Judge; Rhadys Abreu-Blondet, Judge and Víctor Oscar Shiyín García Toma, 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, 37(6), 56 and 58 of the Court's Rules of Procedure (hereinafter, the "Rules of Procedure",2 delivers this Judgment. 1 On August 7, 2008, Judge Diego García- Sayán, Peruvian, requested the President of the Court to accept his disqualification from hearing the instant case since, “[d]espite there is no element that could affect [his] absolute independence and impartiality in the case”, he considered “it was appropriate to disqualify [himself] from hearing the case in order to guarantee, then, the perception of the parties and third parties regarding the total independence and impartiality of the Tribunal considering [he is] a national of Peru.” He further asserted, inter alia, that “it is perfectible compatible with the Convention that a judge requests its disqualification from the deliberation of the case for the mere fact of being a national of the respondent State.” By means of note of August 7, 2008 the President appreciated the concern of Judge García- Sayán to preserve the objective impartiality of this Court and therefore, accepted such disqualification. As a result, upon notice of the application (infra para. 7), the State was informed about said disqualification and was advised about the possible appointment of an Judge ad hoc to intervene in the deliberation and decision of this case. In turn, the State was also informed that the Tribunal had received and was examining a request for advisory opinion filed by the Argentine State, widely disseminated, in which it was being analyzed, inter alia, whether the institution of an Judge ad hoc would be only possible in inter-state contentious case. On September 22, 2008 the State appointed Mr. Victor Oscar Shiyin Garcia Toma as Judge ad hoc. 2 According to the provision of Article 72(2) of the Rules of the Procedure of the Inter-American Court in force, the reforms of which entered into forced on March 24, 2009, “cases pending resolution shall be processed according to the provisions of these Rules of Procedure, except for those cases in which a hearing has already been convened upon the entry into force of these Rules of Procedure; such cases shall be governed by the provisions of the previous Rules of Procedure.” In this way, the Rules of Procedure of the Court mentioned in this Judgment corresponds to the document approved by the Tribunal in its XLIX Ordinary Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 25 2000 and partially amended by the Court in its LXI Ordinary Period of Sessions held from November 20 to December 4, 2003.

Select target paragraph3