Having Seen:
1. The Judgment rendered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) on September 29, 1999
(hereinafter “the Judgment”) in which the Court decided
1. to hold
that the Peruvian State violated, to the detriment of Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti
Hurtado, Articles 7(6) and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
under the terms stated in paragraphs 123 and 133 of the present judgment,
and to order that it comply with the order rendered by the Specialized Court
of Public Law of Lima on February 12, 1997, concerning the writ of habeas
corpus interposed for Mr. Cesti Hurtado.
2. to hold
that the Peruvian State violated, to the detriment of Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti
Hurtado, Article 7(1), (2), and (3) of the American Convention on Human Rights,
under the terms stated in paragraph 151 of the present judgment.
3. to hold
that the Peruvian State violated, to the detriment of Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti
Hurtado, Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, under the
terms stated in paragraphs 152 of the present judgment.
4. to hold
that in this case it was not proven that the Peruvian State has violated,
to the detriment of Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado, Article 8(2) of the
American Convention on Human Rights, as set forth in paragraph 151 of the
present judgment.
5.
to hold that in this case it was not proven that
the Peruvian State has violated, to the detriment of Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti
Hurtado, Article 5(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as set forth
in paragraph 160 of the present judgment.
6. to hold
that the Peruvian State violated, to the detriment of Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti
Hurtado, Articles 1(1) and (2) of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in the terms stated in paragraphs 166 and 170 of the present judgment.
7. to hold
that in this case it was not proven that the Peruvian State has violated,
to the detriment of Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado, Articles 11 and 21 of
the American Convention on Human Rights, in the terms stated in paragraphs
177, 178, and 183 of the present judgment.
8. to hold
that the proceeding conducted against Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado in
the military court are incompatible with the American Convention on Human
Rights, and to order the State to nullify that proceeding, and the effects
that derive from it;
9. to hold
that the Peruvian State is obligated to pay just compensation to Mr. Gustavo
Adolfo Cesti Hurtado and to reimburse him for any expenses he may have incurred
in the representations relating to the present proceedings, and
10.
to order the initiation of the reparations stage,
and to authorize the President to adopt in due course such measures as may
be necessary.
2. The writing of October
13, 1999 submitted to the Court by the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the
State” or “Peru”), by means of which it presented an application for interpretation
of the Judgment (supra 1), in accordance
with Articles 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Convention” or “the American Convention”) and 58 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”).
3. That, in said writing,
the State declared that “the suspension of the execution of the judgment prohibited
by Article 58(4) of the Court, was not applicable to the present case...in
that the present application for interpretation and clarification concerns
... aspects related to the execution of the judgment.”
4. The October 15, 1999
note from the Secretariat of the Court, by means of which it transmitted to
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”
or the “Inter-American Commission”) a copy of the writing of the State of
the same month and year and granted, in accordance with Article 58(2) of its
Rules of Procedure, a period until December 15 of the current year to present
its observations to the application for interpretation interposed by Peru.
5. The October 27, 1999
writing of the Commission in which it referred to the “noncompliance... of
the State” and indicated that it was not possible for Peru to allege as a
justification “the interposition of the... application [for interpretation]
because that [was] clearly and absolutely denied by the precepts of Article
58(4) of the Rules of Procedure.”
6. The November 12, 1999
writing of Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado, in which he communicated to the
Court that, despite having been released on November 11, 1999 by the Military
Court, that Court still had not fully complied with the Judgment, as it had
not ordered the lifting of his ban on going abroad or the orders freezing
his property. He also informed the
Court that it had prevented his attorney from having access to the records
of the case processed before that agency for the purpose of learning the terms
of his release.
Considering:
1. That Peru has been a
State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the
contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981.
2. That Article 58 of the
Rules of Procedure establishes, in relevant part, that
[...]
2.
The
Secretary shall transmit the application for interpretation to the States
that are parties to the case and to the Commission, as appropriate, and shall
invite them to submit any written comments they deem relevant, within a time
limit established by the President.
[...]
4. An application for interpretation shall not suspend
the effect of the judgment.
5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be
followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment.
3. That the nature of the
proceedings before a human rights court does not permit the parties to withdraw
from the application of set procedural rules, since they are by nature of
a public procedural order. (Cfr. Garrido and Baigorria Case, Judgment of
February 2, 1996, Series C No. 26).
4. That the State has not
informed the Court of the scope of the Military Court Judgment pursuant to
which Mr. Cesti Hurtado was released on November 11, 1999, and, in particular,
of compliance with the February 12, 1997 Order rendered by the Special Public
Law Court of Lima regarding the writ of habeas corpus interposed for Mr. Cesti
Hurtado, as was ordered by the Court in its September 29, 1999 Judgment, omissions
which cause uncertainty with respect to the current situation of Mr. Cesti
Hurtado and his family.
5. That the Court considers
it necessary to hold a public hearing to hear the arguments of the parties
concerning the claims formulated by the State in its application for interpretation
and the observations to those claims to be submitted by the Inter-American
Commission on December 15, 1999 at the latest.
THEREFORE:
THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
based on Articles 29(2) and 58
of its Rules of Procedure,
Decides:
1. To declare that the
application for interpretation submitted by the Peruvian State on October
13, 1999 does not suspend the effect of the judgment of September 29, 1999
rendered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
2. To authorize its President
to opportunely summon the Peruvian State and the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights to a public hearing concerning the request for an interpretation
of the Judgment of September 29, 1999, to take place at the seat of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights.
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
President
Máximo Pacheco-Gómez
Oliver Jackman
Alirio Abreu-Burelli Carlos Vicente
de Roux-Rengifo
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles
Secretary
So ordered,
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
President
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles
Secretary