Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Castañeda Gutman v. México Judgment of August 6, 2008 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) In the case of Castañeda Gutman the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges:* Cecilia Medina Quiroga, President Diego García-Sayán, Vice President Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge Leonardo A. Franco, Judge Margarette May Macaulay, Judge Rhadys Abreu Blondet, Judge, and Claus Werner von Wobeser Hoepfner, 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, 53(2), 55, 56 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers the following judgment. I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On March 21, 2007, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) lodged before the Court an application against the United Mexican States (hereinafter “the State” or “Mexico”), which originated in the petition submitted on October 12, 2005, by Jorge Castañeda Gutman. On October 26, 2006, the Commission adopted Report on admissibility and merits No. 113/06, in the terms of Article 50 of the Convention, which contained certain recommendations for the State. This report was notified to the State on December 21, 2006, which was given two months to report on the actions taken to implement the Commission’s recommendations. After “considering the State’s [brief] on implementation of the recommendations contained in the report on merits, and the failure to make any progress in complying with them,” the * On May 7, 2007, Judge Sergio García Ramírez, a Mexican national, recused himself from hearing this case in the terms of Articles 19(2) of the Statute and 19 of the Rules of Procedure; the Court accepted his recusal.