University of Minnesota

Neira Alegría et al. Case, Request of the State of Peru of February 18, 1997 concerning reconsideration of the Order of the President of the Court of February 11, 1997, reprinted in 1997 Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [107], OEA/Ser.L/V/III.39, doc. 5 (1998).




JORGE HAWIE SORET, Agent of the Republic of Peru before this Court, in the application made on our behalf for interpretation of the judgment on reparations in the Neira Alegría et al. case, respectfully informs you:

                That I have taken cognizance of the Order of February 11, 1997, rejecting as time-barred the application from the Government I represent for interpretation of the judgment on reparations in the Neira Alegría Case. I request you to reconsider and annul that Order and determine that our application for interpretation of the aforementioned judgment on reparations be processed for the reasons adduced below:

  That although Article 67 of the Convention provides that a request for interpretation must be made within ninety days from the date of notification of the Judgment, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance Article 50(1) with the Rules of Procedure approved on January 18, 1991, and in force until December 31, 1996, which states in Article 50(1) that "[A]pplications for interpretation shall be filed in the terms of Article 67 of the Convention ..."; however, Article 58(1) of the Rules of Procedure in force since January 1, 1997, and approved on September 20 of last year, provides that "... The application for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat...". As noted, it does not require, as did the previous Rules of Procedure, that it be presented within the term indicated in the Convention; consequently, since the Rules of Procedure are an instrumental normative document, there is currently no deadline for presenting such a request, and in any event it may be submitted at any time before implementation of the judgment begins.

                Furthermore, we do not consider it proper that a term established in days should be converted into calendar months; in other words, it is our view that if a term of 90 days has been set, it is because the need was felt to calculate it in working days, whereas if it was to be calculated in calendar days, the term would simply have been stated as being three calendar months; it should also be borne in mind that the Inter-American Court does not observe Saturdays and Sundays.

  Without prejudice to the above, and for reasons of EQUITY, we consider that the arguments in support of our request for interpretation of the judgment justify its processing, inasmuch as the criteria applied by the Court in determining the amount of compensation in all the cases it has heard inaccurately establishes that compensation to relatives for the death of an alleged victim of a human rights violation must correspond to the sum the decedent would have contributed to the maintenance of his family until the age of 67, without considering that in all legislation throughout the world upkeep of one's descendants is only obligatory until they attain their majority. Furthermore, other arguments have been put forward which we consider worthy of an analytical decision by the Court.  In that case, out of respect for the Member States and because of the Court's major to ensure that the Orders it renders accord with Justice.


                Please take note of the above and annul the above-mentioned Order of February 11, 1997, which rejects as time-barred our request for interpretation of the Judgment on reparations issued in the Neira Alegría Case, processing of which should be allowed to go ahead.

                Lima, February 18, 1997.



Home || Treaties || Search || Links