INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF THE XÁKMOK KÁSEK INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY v. PARAGUAY JUDGMENT OF AUGUST 24, 2010 (Merits, Reparations, and Costs) In the case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges: Diego García-Sayán, President Leonardo Franco, Vice President Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge Margarette May Macaulay, Judge Rhadys Abreu Blondet, Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez, Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Judge, and Augusto Fogel Pedrozo, 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 to Articles 30, 32, 59, and 60 of the Court Rules of Procedure1 (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers this Judgment. I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On July 3, 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”), in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, submitted an application against the Republic of Paraguay (hereinafter “the State” or “Paraguay”), based on which the instant case was commenced. The initial petition was lodged before the Commission on May 15, 2001, and, on February 20, 2003, the Commission approved Report No. 11/03,2 declaring the 1 As stipulated in Article 79(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure that entered into force on June 1, 2010, “[c]ontentious cases submitted to the consideration of the Court before January 1, 2010, will continue to be processed in accordance with the preceding Rules of Procedure until the delivery of to judgment.” Consequently, the Court’s Rules of Procedure mentioned in this judgment correspond to the instrument approved by the Court at its forty-ninth regular session, held from November 16 to 25, 2000, partially amended at its eighty-second regular session held from January 19 to 31, 2009. 2 In Admissibility Report No. 11/03, the Commission concluded that it had competence to examine the petition presented by the petitioners and that it was admissible pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the