c.       Chile

The “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos and Others) Case

270.        The Republic of Chile, the victims, and their representatives, presented information to the Inter-American Court on the full implementation of the judgment handed down by the Court on February 5, 2001, with relation to the ban on the showing of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”. In its resolution of November 28, 2002, the Inter-American Court affirmed that the Republic of Chile had complied with the fifth resolve of the judgment on the case through the payment of the sums fixed for costs and expenses. In relation to the fulfillment of the rest of the compensation ordered in the judgment, the Court indicated that:

1.                  The State has the duty to take all necessary measures to give simple and prompt compliance to the judgment of February 5, 2001, handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of  “The Last Temptation of Christ”, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

271.        The Office of the Rapporteur for the Freedom of Expression in the Americas has responded that on October 30, 2002, the bill for the elimination of film censorship was approved by the Senate after ten years of legislative proceedings and promulgated by President Ricardo Lagos in December 2002, and that it was in force from its publication on January 4, 2003. According to information appearing in the press, since then the film “The Last Temptation of Christ” has been approved for exhibition to people of 18 years and above.

d.       Colombia

The 19 Traders (Alvaro Lobo Pacheco et al.) Case

272.        In June 2002, a public hearing was held for the purpose of hearing argument from the Inter-American Commission and the Colombian Republic in relation to the objections to the jurisdiction of the inter-American Court made by the State at the stage of preliminary exceptions in the Case of the Nineteen Traders.  On June 12, 2002, the Inter-American Court, decided unanimously to set aside the preliminary exception interposed by the State and to continue with its examination of the merits of the case.

The Las Palmeras Case

273.        On June 14, 2002, the Inter-American Court held a public hearing for the purpose of hearing arguments and testimony presented by representatives of the victims, the Commission, and the Republic of Colombia, in relation to compensation owed in the Las Palmeras Case.  On August 26, 2002, the parties presented their final arguments on compensation. Finally, through resolution of November 26, 2002, the Court pronounced its judgment on reparation and ordered unanimously:

1.                  That in accordance with paragraphs 67 and 70 of the present judgment, the State must conclude effectively the criminal case in course for the acts relative to the death of the victims and which occasioned the violations of the American Convention in the present case, and must identify those responsible materially and intellectually as well as possible accessories, and punish them, and publish the result of the trial.

2.                  That the State must, in accordance with paragraphs 71 to 73 of the present judgment, take all the necessary efforts to identify N.N./Moisés within a reasonable period as well as identify, exhume, and deliver his remains to his family. In addition, the State must employ all necessary means to find the relatives of N.N./Moisés by publishing on, at least three days that should not be consecutive, by radio, by television, and by press, all with national coverage, an announcement that they are being sought in order to award them compensation in relation to the facts of the instant case, which occurred on January 23, 1991 in the village Las Palmeras, in the municipality of Mocoa, Putumayo. 

3.                  That the State must publish once in the Official Gazette and in a press communiqué from the national police and the armed forces of Colombia the judgment in the case rendered on December 6, 2001 by the Court, and Chapter 6 entitled Minutes from the present judgment as well as the operative items 1-4 pursuant to paragraph 75 of this Judgment.

4.                  That the State shall return the remains of Hernán Lizcano Jacanamijoy to his family so that they may give him appropriate burial in accordance with paragraphs 76 and 77 of the present Judgment.

5.                  That the State of Colombia must pay the sum of US$100.000.00 (one hundred thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Colombian currency, which shall be delivered to the next of kin of N.N./Moisés, who shall present themselves to the State within 24 months of the identification of the said person and furnish authentic proof of their relationship to the victim, to receive payment of the corresponding reparation, in accordance with paragraph 47 of the present Judgment.

6.                  That the State of Colombia must pay the sum of US$139,000.00 (one hundred and thirty-nine thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Colombian currency, which corresponds to the compensation for damages relating to the violation of Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights. This sum shall be delivered to the next of kin of Julio Milciades Cerón Rojas, Wilian Hamilton Cerón Rojas, Edebraes Norverto Cerón Rojas, Hernán Javier Muchavisoy and Artemio Pantoja Ordoñez, in accordance with paragraphs 56 and 58 of the present Judgment.

7.                  That the State of Colombia must pay the total sum of US$14,500.00 (fourteen thousand five hundred US Dollars) or its equivalent in Colombian currency, which corresponds to the compensation for injury in relation to the violation of Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights. This sum shall be delivered to the next of kin of Hernán Lizcano Janacamijoy, in accordance with paragraphs 59 and 60 of the present Judgment.

8.                  That the state of Colombia, pursuant to paragraph 61 of the present Judgment, shall pay the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand US Dollars) or if appropriate, the sum of US$2,500.00 (two thousand five hundred US Dollars) or its equivalent, as appropriate.

9.                  That the State of Colombia must pay in accordance with paragraph 84 of the present Judgment, as restitution of costs and expenses, to the Colombian Commission of Jurists [Comisión Colombiana de Juristas], the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Colombian currency and US$1,000.00 (one thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Colombian currency to the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL).

10.              That the payments ordered in the present judgment shall be exempt of any current or future levy or tax.

11.              That the State of Colombia must fulfill the reparation measures ordered in the present judgment within six months of notification of the same, except as indicated in paragraphs 47 and 61.

The Caballero Delgado and Santana Case

274.        The Republic of Colombia, the representatives of the victims, and the Commission continued presenting follow-up reports on the full implementation of the judgment on reparation handed down by the Inter-American Court in the Isidro Caballero Delgado and María del Carmen Santana Case. On November 27, 2002, the Court issued a decision on compliance in which it established that the State has paid the principal amount of reparation for moral damage due to Ms. Ana Vitelma Ortiz, mother of María del Carmen Santana. However, from the resolution it emerges that the interest accrued from the time of the judgment until the time of effective payment has not been paid.  The Court noted with concern that the location of the remains of the victims and their delivery to the next of kin, as well as the trial of those responsible for the violations established in the judgment of the case, are still pending. In this respect, it resolved that:

1.                  The State has the duty to take all necessary measures to give effect to and prompt compliance of the judgment of January 29, 1997, given by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

e.       Ecuador

The Benavides Cevallos Case

275.        Through its Decision of November 27, 2002, the Court decided:

1.                  That the State has the obligation to take all measures that may be necessary to give prompt compliance of the judgment of June 19, 1998, handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Benavides Cevallos case, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

f.       Guatemala

The Bámaca Velásquez case

276.        On February 22, 2002 the Court gave its judgment on compensation. In it, it decided unanimously:

1.                  That the State must find the mortal remains of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, disinter them in the presence of his widow and family, as well as hand them pver to the latter, in accordance with paragraphs 81, 82, and 96 of the […] Judgment.

2.                  That the State must investigate the acts that brought about violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture in the present case, must identify and punish those responsible, as well as publish the results of the respective investigation in accordance with paragraphs 73-78 and 87 of the Judgment.

3.                  That the State must publish in the Official Gazette and once in another national daily, the chapter that refers to the proven facts and the resolve of the judgment on the case given on November 25, 2000, and make a public act admitting its responsibility to the facts in this case and of compensation to the victims.

4.                  That the State must adopt such legislative or other sort of measures as may be necessary to align Guatemalan domestic law with international laws on human rights and humanitarian law, and to give full effect to the said norms internally, in accordance with Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

5.                  That the State must pay in respect of moral damages:

a)      The amount of US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, to be distributed in equal parts between Mr. José León Bámaca Hernández, Ms. Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez, Ms. Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, and Jennifer Harbury in their condition as entitled persons of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, in accordance with paragraphs 62, 66, 67, and 53 of the […] Judgment.

b)      To Jennifer Harbury the sum of US$80,000.00 (eighty thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in accordance with paragraphs 65.a), and 66 of the […] Judgment.

c)      To José León Bámaca Hernández, the amount of US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in accordance with paragraphs 65.b), and 66 of the […] Judgment.

d)      To Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez, the amount of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in accordance with paragraphs 65.b) and 66 of the […] Judgment.

e)                   To Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, the amount of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in accordance with paragraphs 65.b) and 66 of the […] Judgment.

f)      To Alberta Velásquez, the amount of US$5,000.00 (five thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in accordance with paragraphs 65.c), and 66 of the […] Judgment.

6.                  That the State must pay as material compensation:

a)      The sum of US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, to be distributed in even parts between José León Bámaca Hernández and Ms. Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez, Ms. Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, and Jennifer Harbury, in their condition  of entitled persons in relation to Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, in accordance with paragraphs 51, 53, and 55 of the […] Judgment.

b)       To Jennifer Harbury the amount of US$125,000.00 (one hundred and twenty-five thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, corresponding to the income she failed to receive during the period from March 12, 1992 until January 1997, for her expenses incurred through ill health caused by the effects of the case and the expenses she incurred trying to identify the whereabouts of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, in accordance with paragraphs 54 and 55 of the […] judgment.

7.                  That the State must pay as costs and expenses the sum of US$23,000.00 (twenty-three thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Guatemalan currency, to the family members and representatives of the victims, in accordance with paragraph 91 of the […] judgment.

8.                  That the State must comply with the compensatory measures ordered in the […] judgment within six months counting from the notification of the same.

9.                  That the payments determined in the […] […] Judgment shall be exempt from any current or future tax or charge.

The Mirna Mack Case

277.        On August 29, 2002, the Inter-American Court forwarded to the Commission the document signed by the representatives of the alleged victim and addressed to the Inter-American Court “to challenge Mr. Francisco Villagrán Kramer’s appointment as ad hoc judge.”  In briefs dated September 4 and October 1, 2002, the Commission conveyed to the Court its observations on the document sent by the representatives of the victim, stating its position regarding the inadmissibility of appointing an ad hoc judge in the instant case and on the validity of the objection presented, respectively.  In a note dated October 3, 2002, the Court informed the Commission of the decision by the Guatemalan State to appoint Mr. Arturo Martínez Gálvez instead of Dr. Francisco Villagrán Kramer.  On November 30, 2002, the Court issued a Decision convening the representatives of the victim, the IACHR, and the Guatemalan State to the public hearing to take place on February 18, 2002 to hear the oral arguments of the parties on preliminary objections, the merits of the case, and reparation, as well as witnesses and expert witnesses.

The Maritza Urrutia Case

278.        On January 9, 2002 the Inter-American Commission submitted for the consideration of the Court, in accordance with Article 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Maritza Urrutia, (Nº 11.043) vs. Guatemala Case. The said request relates to the alleged arbitrary detention and torture of Maritza Ninette Urrutia García, “who was imprisoned in a clandestine detention center for eight days and was forced to publish a communiqué which had been previously prepared by her captors, all of which occurred in violation of her rights to personal freedom and physical integrity, to freedom of expression, to the right to enjoy judicial guarantees, and the right to judicial protection of the victim and her family, according to Articles 7, 5, 13, 8, and 25, respectively of the American Convention in conjunction with the general obligation established in Article 1(1) of the same Treaty to respect and ensure the rights recognized in it.”

279.        The Commission in its request asked the Court to declare the violation of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.  At the same time, that the Court should declare the obligation on the part of the State of Guatemala to remedy the consequences of these violations and to compensate the alleged victim and her family, as well as restore to them the costs and expenses arising from their activity abroad in order to place the case before the Commission and the costs that arise as a consequence of instituting proceedings before the Court.

280.        On March 18, 2002 the Commission conveyed to the Court its observations on the document containing the requests, arguments, and evidence presented by the representatives of the victim that the Court had forwarded to it on February 21, 2001. On March 22, 2002, the Court forwarded the Guatemalan State’s reply to the petition submitted. On November 30, 2002, the Court issued a Decision convening the representatives of the victim, the IACHR, and the Guatemalan State to the public hearing to take place as of February 21, 2002 to hear the oral arguments of the parties on preliminary objections, the merits of the case, and reparation, as well as witnesses and expert witnesses.

The “Plan de Sánchez Massacre” Case

281.        On July 31, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights presented a petition against the Republic of Guatemala in relation to case Nº 11.763  (The Plan de Sánchez Massacre) regarding “the denial of justice and other acts of intimidation and discrimination that affected the rights to humane treatment and to freedom of conscience and religion and to private property of the survivors and next of kin of the [alleged] victims of the massacre of 268 persons […], mostly members of the Mayan indigenous people in the village of Plan de Sánchez, Municipality of Rabinal, Department of Baja Verapaz, [allegedly] carried out by members of the Guatemalan army and civilian collaborators, under army tutelage, on Sunday, July 18, 1982 in Guatemala.

282.        In its application, the Commission requested that the Court declare the “international responsibility of the State of Guatemala for violations of the rights to humane treatment, to judicial protection, to fair trial, to equal protection, to freedom of conscience and of religion, and to property, in combination with the obligation to respect rights, all the above embodied in Articles 5, 8, 25, 24, 12, 2 and 1(1) of the American Convention.” The Commission also requested that the Court conclude and declare that “the State of Guatemala is under the obligation to individually and collectively redress the consequences of those violations and to compensate the surviving victims of the massacre and the next of kin of those extrajudicially executed, as well as to reimburse them for expenses and costs incurred during international proceedings of this case before the Commission and those incurred as a consequence of the processing of the application before the Court.”

283.        On November 1, 2002, the Court sent a copy of the communication in which the State replied to the petition and filed preliminary objections. In a note also dated November 1, 2002, the Commission presented its observations on the document containing the requests, arguments, and evidence presented by the representatives of the victim that the Court had forwarded to it on October 3, 2002.  On November 27, 2002, the Commission presented its written arguments on the preliminary objections lodged by the Guatemalan State.

The Blake Case

284.        On November 27, 2002, the State of Guatemala presented a brief indicating in relation to fulfilling the judgment, that it was repeating its previous reports in the sense that Mr. Vicente Cifuentes López, who was sentenced for the killing of Mr. Nicholas Chapman Blake, continued in detention.  At the same time, it declared that the National Civil Police had taken steps to capture the other persons implicated in the acts.  This, until now has not been possible in view of the fact that the actual whereabouts of the accused is not known. Finally, they explained that the financial indemnification had already been paid in accordance with the orders of the Court.

285.        In monitoring the complete fulfillment of the judgment on compensation in the present case, the Court has established that the State paid the sums corresponding to the indemnification with interest to the families of the victims complying with the second and fourth resolves of the judgment on compensation, as the State itself indicated on March 30, 2000 in its second report on the implementation of the judgment.  In the same way, in the said brief the State reported to the Court that in the internal trial the penal judgment court “sentenced to 28 years of prison without remission Mr. Vicente Cifuentes López, as the person responsible” for the murder of Mr. Nicholas Blake and Mr. Griffith Williams Davis.

286.        The Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the victim and his family do not agree with the State as regards the implementation of the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible, given that, as the State reported, only one of the three involved in the case was investigated and sentenced by the internal jurisdiction.

287.        In its third report on implementation, the State repeated that it had paid the sums stipulated in the judgment of January 22, 1999, by which it considered that it had “implemented in full” the said sentence and requested the Court “the full archive of the present case.” At the same time it reported that it had requested that the cases in the internal proceedings against Candelario López Herrera, Hipólito Ramos García and Mario Cano Saucedo will remain open and that they are trying to verify their whereabouts.

288.        Through its Decision of November 27, 2002, the Court decided that:

1.         The State has the obligation to take all necessary measures to implement promptly the judgment for compensation of January 22, 1999, handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Blake Case in accordance with the provisions in Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights

g.       Honduras

289.        On September 8, 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights suit against the Republic of Honduras in connection with Case 11.073, regarding the alleged arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial execution of Juan Humberto Sánchez on July 11, 1992. According to the suit filed, the State of Honduras violated the right to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, and judicial protection of the victim and his next-of-kin, guaranteed under Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25, respectively, of the American Convention, as well as the generic obligation under Article 1(1) of the same Convention to respect the rights recognized therein and ensure the full and free exercise of those rights.

290.        On the basis of the conclusions it had reached in this case, the Commission requested that the Court order the State of Honduras to make the financial and nonfinancial reparation indicated in Chapter VII of this suit. Accordingly, the Commission asks the Court to instruct the State of Honduras to pay damages for the violations of the human rights of Juan Humberto Sánchez and his next-of-kin, as indicated.  Likewise, the Commission requests that the Court arrange for a series of acts of nonfinancial compensation, as explained in the aforementioned chapter.  Finally, the Commission requests that the Court order the State of Honduras to pay the domestic court costs of the judicial proceedings initiated with a view to punishing those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Juan Humberto Sánchez, the international costs of processing the case before the Commission, and the costs associated with the Courts processing of this suit.

          h.       Nicaragua

The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case 

291.        On July 19, 2002, the representatives of the victims requested the adoption of provisional measures pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.  The representatives of the victims argued that “provisional measures are needed to ensure enforcement of the Court’s judgment on the merits in the instant case and to mitigate the immediate, grave, and irreparable damage currently being done in the territory of the Community and which will get worse if the State does not take prompt steps to curb the activities currently being carried out by third parties on land belonging to the Community of Awas Tingni”.

292.        On July 29, 2002, the Commission commented on the request for provisional measures presented by the victim’s representatives. The Commission’s written statement indicated that in its opinion it was “necessary that the … Court … adopt appropriate measures to enable the parties to proceed to integral and effective execution of the Judgment of August 31, 2001.” Consequently, the Commission asked the Court “respectfully to take the steps needed to prevent immediate and irreparable damage resulting from the activities being carried out by third parties that have settled in the territory of the Community or are exploiting its natural resources until the boundaries, demarcation, and land titling ordered by the Court have been put into effect.”

293.        On September 5, 2002, the State presented a written statement reporting that “the Sixth Meeting of Committee II was held on Monday, September 2 of this year, with the participation of the Community’s legal representatives.  At that meeting it was agreed that the Government of Nicaragua would provisionally recognize the Community’s rights to use, occupy, and exploit its lands after conducting a diagnostic assessment, as proposed by the Community and taking into account the results of that assessment […] Accordingly, […] the Government of Nicaragua carried out an inspection in situ in the Community of Awas Tingni from August 18 to August 28, 2002, and as a goodwill gesture on the part of the Government of Nicaragua it was agreed that the Community of Awas Tingni would receive a written reply regarding its proposal of a provisional joint management mechanism for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of the territory’s forest resources prior to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled for October 31, 2002, in Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua.”

294.        The Court studied the documents submitted and on September 6, 2002 issued a Decision (Resolución) through which it resolved:

1.                  To order that the State adopt, without delay, such measures as may be necessary to protect the use and enjoyment of ownership of the lands belonging to the Mayagna (Sumo) Community of Awas Tingni and of the natural resources in them, especially measures designed to prevent immediate and irreparable damage resulting from the activities being carried out by third parties that have settled in the territory of the Community or are exploiting its natural resources until the boundaries, demarcation, and land titling ordered by the Court have been put into effect.

2.                  To order the State to let the petitioners take part in the planning and implementation of the measures and, in general, to keep them informed on progress with implementation of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

3.                  To order the State to investigate the alleged incidents that gave rise to these measures in order to identify and punish those responsible.

i.        Panama

The Baena Ricardo and others Case

295.        Between January 11, 2002 and November 12, 2002 the State, the Commission, the victims, and their representatives presented their observations regarding fulfillment of the judgment rendered by the Court on February 2, 2001. On June 21, 2002, the Court ruled on fulfillment of the judgment it rendered on February 2, 2001. Specifically, it ruled that:

1.         The State should submit a detailed report to the Court by no later than August 15, 2002, in accordance with preambular paragraphs 2 and 3 of the […] decision.

2.         That the victims or their legal representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights should present their observations on the State’s report within seven weeks of receipt of that report.

296.        On August 16, the State submitted its report on fulfillment of the judgment, and, subsequently, the representatives of the victims presented their observations on it. On October 7, the Commission presented its observations on the report by the State. On October 14, 2002, through the Permanent Representative of Panama to the Organization of American States, the Commission received from the State of Panama check Nº 141824833 in the amount of US$100.000.⁰⁰ and check Nº 141824834 for US$20,000.00, both checks being issued by Banco Nacional de Panamá as banker’s drafts made out to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to pay the petitioner’s legal costs and lawyers’ fees in the abovementioned case. The Commission received various messages from the victims and their representatives regarding the legal costs and fees incurred in domestic proceedings and in international processing of this case in the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.

297.        The Court studies the briefs presented by the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the victims and the victims’ representatives regarding fulfillment of the judgment rendered by the Court on February 2, 2001 in the instant case and, on November 22, 2002, ruled as follows:

1.         That the State must re-determine, according to applicable domestic law, the specific amounts of wages lost and other worker’s rights of each of the 270 victims, without exception. This new determination shall be made in accordance with due process of law and with the legislation applicable to each victim, in such a way that they are able to present their written arguments and testimony and that they are informed of the parameters and legislation used by the State in calculating the amounts involved.

2.         That the procedures for fulfilling operative item 7 of the judgment of February 2, 2001 shall be conducted in accordance with due process of law and with the legislation applicable to each victim, in such a way that they are able to present their written arguments and testimony and that they are informed of the parameters and legislation used by the State.

3.         That the compensation ordered for the 270 victims or their beneficiaries shall not be liable to any existing or future tax, including income tax.

4.         That the State shall pay penalty interest accruing during the time it was in arrears regarding payment of compensation on account of moral prejudice.

5.         That the settlement documents signed by some of the victims or their beneficiaries as a prerequisite for receiving payment of the compensation sums provided for in operative item 6 that were calculated by the State shall be valid only inasmuch as they recognize payment of the sum mentioned therein.  Any waivers in them to the effect that the victims or their beneficiaries declared satisfaction with the payment received shall not be valid, Therefore such waivers shall not preclude the victims or their beneficiaries from submitting claims and evidence that the State should have paid them a different amount in respect of lost wages and other worker’s rights to which they are entitled.

6.         That the sums of money that the State allegedly paid out in checks to 195 of the victims in amounts calculated by the State on account of lost wages and other worker’s rights shall be considered by this Court as an advance on the total damages owing. For that reason, the State shall submit to the Court a copy of the settlement documents proving delivery of the checks.

7.         That the State has fulfilled its obligation to pay for the group of 270 victims the amount of US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand US dollars) as reimbursement of expenses and US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand US dollars) to cover legal costs incurred. 

8.         That, in distributing the sums paid by the State for legal costs and expenses, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights shall take into account the expenses of all the victims and their representatives, bearing in mind that not all of them are represented by CEJIL.

9.         That the State shall deliver the checks due on account of moral prejudice when the competent authorities determine the identities of the beneficiaries of deceased victims who are still owed compensation, and that the State shall pay the penalty interest accrued for paying after the 90-day deadline.

[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]