ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ∗ OF AUGUST 21, 2013 CASE OF HUILCA TECSE v. PERU MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT HAVING SEEN: 1. The Judgment on merits, reparations and costs (hereinafter “the Judgment”) delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Court” or “the Court”) on March 3, 2005. The case refers to the extrajudicial execution, on December 18, 1992, of Pedro Huilca Tecse who, at that time, was the Secretary General of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru; the violation of the right to freedom of association in relation to the right to unionize, and failure to comply with the obligation to conduct an investigation with due diligence to clarify the facts and eventually prosecute those responsible, which, in this case, constituted a situation of serious impunity. The Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) informed the Court of its acquiescence, which was admitted and Peru was declared responsible for the violation of Articles 4(1) and 16 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Pedro Huilca Tecse, and of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of his next of kin. In addition, the Court partially endorsed the agreement concerning the methods and time frames for complying with the reparations signed by the State and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin on December 6, 2004. 2. The Order of the Court of September 22, 2006, in which it declared: 1. That, as indicated in the tenth considering paragraph of the […] Order, the State has complied with the obligation to: a) Organize a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility in relation to this case, and to make a public apology to the victim’s next of kin (first operative paragraph, subparagraph (b), of the Judgment of March 3, 2005); ∗ The President of the Court, Judge Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national, did not take part in the examination and deliberation of this Order pursuant to Articles 19(2) of the Statute and 19(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.