University of Minnesota

Cantoral Benavides Case, Order of the Court of June 18, 1998, reprinted in 1998 Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [223], OEA/Ser.L/V/III.43, doc. 11 (1999).




1. The note submitted on July 15, 1997 by the State of Peru (hereinafter "Peru" or "the State") in which it reported that it had granted a pardon to Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, alleged victim in the instant Case, and requested the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Court") to order "the dismissal of the case in view of [his] release"  in accordance with Law No. 26.655.

2. The brief from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission") of October 16, 1997, in which it submitted its comments on the aforesaid request by Peru, asked the Court to rule it out of order and to continue to process the case, and stated that

The pardon granted to Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral and the release ordered in his favor constitute a positive measure on the part of the Illustrious Government of Peru ... However, a reading of Supreme Decision 078-97-JUS shows that it does not constitute reparation for the various violations of which Mr. Cantoral has been the victim.

It further stated that, by note of August 27, 1997, the alleged victim had requested that the Commission continue with the instant Case.

3. The State’s brief of November 4, 1997, in which it referred to the comments submitted by the Inter-American Commission.

4. The State’s note of April 24, 1998, in which it reiterated its request for dismissal of this case.

5. The Order of the Court of June 8, 1998 in which, after considering that it needed further information on the scope of the State’s declarations, "it [r]eserve[d] consideration of [its] request for dismissal for after the public hearing [on preliminary objections] convened [for the same day]."

6. Peru’s statements at the hearing held at the seat of the Court on June 8, 1998.


1. That Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that

[i]f the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence in the claims of the party that has brought the case, the Court shall decide, after hearing the opinions of the latter and the representatives of the victims or their next of kin, whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities.

2. That neither the aforementioned Supreme Decision, a measure of domestic law under which Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was pardoned, nor the briefs and statements to this Court in themselves meet the acquiescence requirements contained in Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

3. That, in maintaining the preliminary objections it filed in the instant Case, the State adopted a position incompatible with the notion of acquiescence.

4. That, consequently, dismissal is out of order and the Court must continue to process the instant Case.



pursuant to Article 25 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 29(2) and 52(2) of its Rules of Procedure,


1. To deny the request for dismissal submitted by the State of Peru.

2. To continue to process the instant Case.



Home || Treaties || Search || Links