1. The January 22, 1998 note from the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretary”), wherein it informed the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State”) of its right to designate an ad hoc judge for the present case within thirty days.
2. The February 20, 1998 note from the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State), in which it designed David Pezúa-Vivanco as Judge ad hoc in the present case.
3. The March 23, 1998 note from the Secretariat, in which it informed David Pezúa-Vivanco of his designation as Judge ad hoc in the present case, and advised him that “the President of the Court [...] would opportunely [...] summon him to be sworn in at the seat of the Tribunal.”
4. The September 10, 1998 note from the Secretariat, in which it summoned Mr. Pezúa-Vivanco to the XLII Regular Session of the Court, and informed him that a hearing would be held at that session on the preliminary objections interposed by the State.
5. The November 20, 1998 note from Mr. Pezúa-Vivanco, in which he informed the Court that it was physically impossible for him to travel to the seat of the Court for its XLII Regular Session.
6. The notes of November 23 and 24, 1998 from the Secretariat, by means of which it sent to the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) respectively, the note of Mr. Pezúa-Vivanco of the twentieth same month and year.
7. The December 9, 1998 note from the Secretariat, in which it summoned Mr. Pezúa-Vivanco to the XLIII Regular Session of the Court.
8. The December 10, 1998 note from Mr. Pezúa-Vivanco, in which he informed the Court of his renunciation of the designation of ad hoc judge in the present case, citing reasons of incompatibility resulting from his position as Executive Secretary of the Executive Commission of the Judicial Power of the State.
9. The December 15, 1998 notes from the Secretariat, in which it forwarded to the State and the Commission Mr. Pezúa-Vivanco’s note of the tenth of the same month and year.
1. That, pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), “[i]n a case arising under Articles 55(2) and 55(3) of the Convention and 10(2) or 10(3) of the Statute, the President, acting through the Secretariat, shall invite the States referred to in those provisions to appoint an ad hoc judge within thirty days following the Agent’s receipt of the written invitation.” In accordance with the provision in the cited Article, on January 22, 1998 the Secretariat invited the State to make the designation of ad hoc judge.
2. That, in accordance with Article 16 of the Statute of the Court, “[t]he judges shall remain at the disposal of the Court, and shall travel to the seat of the Court or to the place where the Court is holding its sessions as often and for as long a time as may be necessary, as established in the Regulations.” Article 20 of the Statute also provides that the judges are answerable to the Court for any act of negligence or omission committed in the exercise of their functions.
3. That, in accordance with Article 18(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court “[a]d hoc judges shall take an oath at the first meeting devoted to the consideration of the case for which they have been appointed.” In this regard, Mr. Pezúa-Vivanco was duly summoned to take the oath before the Court during its XLII Regular Session, and was informed that the Court would hold the hearing on preliminary objections during that session. None the less, he did not appear before the Court on that occasion.
4. That the State is aware of the failure of the person who it designated as its ad hoc judge, to comply with the functions required by the Rules of Procedure to take up his position. The State also has been informed that Mr. Pezúa-Vivanco renounced his appointment.
5. That the fundamental responsibility of the Court is to assure the effective protection of human rights and, to comply with this commitment, to must give particular importance to the satisfactory progress of the proceedings.
THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
in accordance with the requirements of Articles 10, 11, 16, and 20 of its Statute and Articles 18(1), 18(5) and 19(3) of its Rules of Procedure
1. To take notice of Mr. Pezúa-Vivanco’s renunciation of his appointment as ad hoc judge in the present case.
2. To continue to hear the case with its present composition.