Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007 Molina Theissen v. Guatemala (Monitoring Compliance with Judgment) HAVING SEEN: 1. The judgment on merits delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) on May 4, 2004, in which it: DECID[ED]: unanimously, 1. To reaffirm its Order of April 26, 2004, in which it considered that the preliminary objections filed by the State had been withdrawn and accepted the State’s acknowledgement of its international responsibility. 2. To declare that the dispute concerning the facts that gave rise to this case have ceased. 3. To declare, in accordance with the terms of the State’s acknowledgement of its international responsibility and with the facts that have been established, that the State violated the rights embodied in Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 17 (Rights of the Family), 19 (Rights of the Child) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and that it failed to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, to the detriment of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen; the State also failed to comply with the obligation established in Articles I and II of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons to the detriment of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, in the terms of paragraph 43 of th[e] judgment. 4. To declare, in accordance with the terms [of the State’s acknowledgement of its international responsibility and with] the facts that have been established, that the State violated the rights embodied in Articles, 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment); 8 (Right to a Fair Trial); 17 (Rights of the Family), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and that it failed to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen: Emma Theissen Álvarez vda. de Molina (mother), Carlos Augusto Molina Palma (deceased father), Emma Guadalupe, Ana Lucrecia and María Eugenia Molina Theissen (sisters), in the terms of paragraph 44 of th[e] judgment. 5. 2. To continue hearing the case at thereparations and costs stage. The judgment on reparations delivered by the Court on July 3, 2004, in which: unanimously, IT DECLARE[D] THAT: 1. [The] Judgment is per se a form of reparation, pursuant to paragraph 66 [thereof]. AND ORDER[ED] THAT:

Select target paragraph3