ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS* OF NOVEMBER 30, 2011 CASE OF “FIVE PENSIONERS” v. PERU MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT HAVING SEEN: 1. The judgment on merits, reparations, and costs (hereinafter “the judgment) delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) on February 28, 2003. 2. The orders on monitoring compliance with the judgment issued by the InterAmerican Court on November 17, 2004, September 12, 2005, July 4, 2006, and December 3, 2008. 3. The order issued by the Court on November 24, 2009, in which it declared that it would continue to monitor compliance with the following aspects that remained pending: a) “Conduct the corresponding investigations and apply the pertinent punishments to those responsible for failing to abide by the judgments delivered by the Peruvian courts in the applications for protective measures filed by the victims” (sixth operative paragraph of the judgment of February 28, 2003), and b) Establish “the patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property, […] in the terms of domestic law, by the competent domestic bodies” (fifth operative paragraph of the judgment of February 28, 2003). 4. The reports of the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) on progress in complying with the judgment, presented on March 18 and September 1, 2010. 5. The observations on the State’s reports of the representative of the victims (hereinafter, the “representative), and their briefs on compliance with judgment, presented on April 27, July 2 and October 10, 2010, and January 18 and February 11, 2011. 6. The observations on the State’s reports of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”), presented on June 2, 2010, and April 13, 2011. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. An inherent attribute of the judicial functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. * Judge Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national recused himself from taking part in monitoring compliance with the judgment delivered in this case; consequently, he did not participate in the deliberation of this order.