Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004 Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru (Monitoring Compliance with Judgment) HAVING SEEN: 1. The Judgment on merits, reparations and costs, which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) delivered on February 28, 2003, wherein it unanimously, 1. Declare[d] that the State [had] violated the right to property embodied in Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights, as stated in paragraphs 93 to 121 of [the] judgment, to the detriment of Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica RuizHuidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra and Reymert Bartra Vásquez. 2. Declare[d] that the State [had] violated the right to judicial protection embodied in Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, as stated in paragraphs 125 to 141 of [the] judgment, to the detriment of Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra and Reymert Bartra Vásquez. 3. Declare[d] that the State [had] failed to comply with the general obligations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the violations of the substantive rights indicated in the preceding operative paragraphs, as stated in paragraphs 161 to 168 of [the] judgment. 4. Declare[d] that th[e] judgment constitute[d] per se a form of reparation for the victims, as stated in paragraph 180 of th[e] judgment. 5. Decide[d] that the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property should be established under domestic legislation, by the competent national organs. 6. Decide[d] that the State [had to] conduct the corresponding investigations and apply the pertinent punishments to those responsible for failing to abide by the judicial decisions delivered by the Peruvian courts during the applications for protective measures filed by the victims. 7. Decide[d] that, as indicated in paragraph 190 of [the] judgment, in fairness, the State [had to] pay the four victims and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra’s widow the amount of US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) for non-pecuniary damage. The State [had to] comply with the provisions of this operative paragraph within one year at the latest of notification of [the] judgment. 8. Decide[d] that the State [had to] pay the amount of US$13,000.00 (thirteen thousand United States dollars) for expenses and a total of US$3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred United States dollars) for costs, as stated in paragraph 182 of [the] judgment. 9. Declare[d] that the payments of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses established in [the] judgment [were] not […] subject to any current or future tax or charge.