Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of YATAMA v. Nicaragua Judgment of June 23, 2005 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) In the Case of YATAMA, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”, or “the Court”), composed of the following judges: Sergio García Ramírez, President Alirio Abreu Burelli, Vice President Oliver Jackman, Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, Judge Cecilia Medina Quiroga, Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge Diego García-Sayán, Judge, and Alejandro Montiel Argüello, 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, 37, 56, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”)1, delivers this judgment. I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE 1. On June 17, 2003, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 50 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted to the Court an application against the State of Nicaragua (hereinafter “the State” or “Nicaragua”), originating from petition No. 12,388, received by the Secretariat of the Commission on April 26, 2001. 2. The Commission presented the application for the Court to decide whether the State had violated Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 23 (Right to Participate in Government) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, all of them in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, to the detriment of the candidates for mayors, deputy mayors and councilors presented by the indigenous regional political party, Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asla 1 This judgment is delivered under the terms of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights at its forty-ninth regular session by an order of November 24, 2000, which entered into force on June 1, 2001, and in accordance with the partial reform adopted by the Court at its sixty-first regular session by an order of November 25, 2003, in force since January 1, 2004.