Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights * of November 20, 2009 Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru (Monitoring Compliance with Judgment) Having Seen: 1. The Judgment on the preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs (hereinafter, “the Judgment”) delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Court”, "the Inter-American Court”, or “the Tribunal”) on November 24, 2006 in the case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees v. Peru, whereby the Tribunal decided that the State of Peru (hereinafter, “the State”, or “Peru”) must: […] 4. […] guarantee to the 257 victims listed in the Appendix to the […] Judgment access to a simple, prompt and effective recourse and, to this end, it must establish, as soon as possible, an independent and impartial body with powers to decide in a binding and final manner, whether or not the said persons were dismissed in a justified and regular manner from the Congress of the Republic, and to establish the corresponding legal consequences, including, if applicable, the relevant compensation based on the specific circumstances of each individual, in the terms of paragraphs 148, 149 and 155 of [the] Judgment. The final decisions of the body established for these effects must be adopted within one year of notification of […] Judgment [;] 5. […] pay, within one year of notification of [the] judgment, the amount established in paragraph 151 of [the] judgment, in favor of the 257 victims whose names appear in the Appendix to [the] Judgment, for non-pecuniary damage, in the terms of paragraphs 156 and 158 to 161 of [the] Judgment [,and] 6. […] pay, within one year of notification of […] Judgment, the amounts established for costs in paragraph 154, in the terms of paragraphs 157 to 161 of [the] Judgment. […] 2. The request for interpretation of the Judgment, filed by one of the victims’ representatives an declared inadmissible on November 30, 2007, on the grounds that it did not conform to Article 67 of the Convention and Articles 29(3) and 59 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, in force at the time.1 3. The first and the second report presented by the State on January 14 and November 7, 2008, on the compliance with the Judgment, as well as the observations to said state reports of the common interveners of January 24 and November 27, 2008 and of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission” or “the InterAmerican Commission”) of March 10, 2008 and February 5, 2009. * Judge Diego García-Sayán disqualified himself from participating in the procedure of monitoring compliance with the Judgment delivered in the instant case. Judge Leonardo A. Franco informed the Court that, due to reasons of force majeure, he could not participate in the deliberation and signature of this Order. 1 Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). V. Peru. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2007. Series C No. 174.