6.
The communication of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of
June 2, 2010, in which it urged the State to present a detailed report by July 30, 2010,
indicating all the measures adopted to comply with the Judgment of February 1, 2006. The
request made to the State for information was repeated in the Secretariat’s communications
of August 16, September 28 and November 2, 2010, July 15, 2011, July 6, August 24 and
November 1, 2012, and January 17, 2013.
7.
The Secretariat’s communication of April 18, 2013, in which, on the instructions of
the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), it convened the State, the
representatives and the Inter-American Commission to a private hearing (hereinafter “the
hearing”) on monitoring compliance with the Judgment.
8.
The hearing held on May 23, 2013, at the seat of the Court in San José, Costa Rica,
on monitoring compliance with the Judgment. 1
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor
compliance with its decisions.
2.
Honduras has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 8, 1977, and
accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on September 9, 1981.
3.
Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the
Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they
are parties.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the
Court’s decisions in its judgments. 2
a) Information and observations presented on the obligation to investigate
the facts of the case and to apply the measures that derive from this
investigation to those responsible for the said facts (seventh operative
paragraph of the Judgment)
4.
Regarding the seventh operative paragraph (supra having seen paragraph 2), the
State indicated it its report of July 1, 2008, that “the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights
[was] coordinat[ing] measures […], in order to open an investigation to determine whether
or not officials [of that institution] had been guilty of willful misconduct during the detention
of Mr. López Álvarez.” During the hearing, the State affirmed that, in 2000, based on the
fact that senior authorities had prohibited a group of individuals in the Tela Prison –
1
Under Article 62(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Court held the private hearing with a committee
of judges composed of: Diego García-Sayán, President, Alberto Pérez Pérez and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor. In
addition, there appeared: for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Silvia Serrano Guzmán, adviser;
for the representatives of the victims: Cristian A. Callejas Escoto, OFRANEH; Marcia Aguiluz, CEJIL; Paola Limón,
CEJIL; Sergio Pacheco, CEJIL, and Léa Gaudry, CEJIL, and for the State of Honduras: Ethel Suyapa Deras
Enamorado, Attorney General; Maura Jacqueline Portillo, lawyer, principal consultant, and Jhon César Mejía,
prosecutor attached to the Prosecution Service of La Esperanza, Intibucá.
2
Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para.
131, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of March 20, 2013,
third considering paragraph.

2

Select target paragraph3