University of Minnesota

Cantoral Benavides Case, Order of the Court of June 8, 1998, reprinted in 1998 Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [213], 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 closure of the case in view of [his] release" under 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 and requested the Court to find it out of order and to continue to process the case, stating that

The pardon granted to Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral and the release ordered in his favor is 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 was the victim.

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

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

It [would] be pointless to continue to process the instant Case, inasmuch as in the present circumstances any claim of damages and injuries for [the] detention [of Mr. Cantoral-Benavides] must be justified before the Peruvian courts in accordance with the provisions of Art. 139(7) of the Constitution and Law 24.973.

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


1.         That the Tribunal’s decision on the preliminary objections lodged in the instant Case is still pending.

2.         That in order to rule on the State’s "request for closure", the Court needs further information on the scope of the State’s declarations.

3.         That, in light of the above, it is advisable to hold the hearing convened for today in the instant case, at which the information mentioned in the preceding operative paragraph will also be provided.



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


1.         To continue with the proceeding.

2.         To hold the public hearing scheduled for June 8, 1998 in the instant Case.

3.         To reserve consideration of the State’s "request for closure" for after the public hearing convened.



Home || Treaties || Search || Links