|
CASE
10.247 ET AL. EXTRAJUDICIAL
EXECUTIONS AND FORCED
DISAPPEARANCES OF PERSONS PERU October
11, 2001
I. SUMMARY
1.
From 1984 to 1993, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission,” “the Inter-American Commission,”
or “the IACHR”) received, among others, 25 petitions alleging that
the Peruvian State (hereinafter “the State,” “Peru,” or “the
Peruvian State”) violated rights set forth in the American Convention
on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American
Convention”) to the detriment of the following 119 persons:
Luis Miguel Pasache Vidal (Case 10.247); Walter Wilfredo Valer
Munaylla (Case 10.472); Nilton Adelmo Loli Mauricio, Saturnino Serrate
García, and Esaú Daniel Moreno Cotrina (Case 10.805); Javier Alberto
Ipanaque Marcelo, Guillermo Salinas Conde, Fidel Romero Conde, Uriol
Tafur Ayala, Víctor Manuel Briceño García, and Eusebio Aniceto Garay
(Case 10.878); Juan Hualla Choquehuanca, Francisco Atamari Mamani,
Feliciano Turpo Valeriano, and Roberto Quispe Mamani (Case 10.913);
Guillermo Marín Arenas, Gerardo Chaico, Cirila de Chaico and her
five-year-old son, the sister of Cirila de Chaico and her two-year-old
son, and six unidentified persons (Case 10.947); Teodoro Lorenzo
Alvarado Castillo (Case 10.994); Raúl Antero Cajacuri Roca (Case
11.035); Adrián Medina Puma (Case 11.051); Rafael Ventocilla Rojas,
Marino Ventocilla Rojas, Alejandro Ventocilla Castillo, Simón
Ventocilla Castillo, Paulino Ventocilla Castillo, and Rubén Ventocilla
León (Case 11.057); Ricardo Salazar Ruiz (Case 11.065); Amadeo Inca
Ñaupa (or Amadeo Arcanaupa), Luciano Huamán García, Antonio Janampa
Aucassi, Constantina García Gutiérrez, Marciano (or Mariano) Janampa
García, Agripina Aucassi Espilico, Maura Huamán Paucar, Demetrio
Huamán León, Víctor Rojas Huamán (or Víctor Huamán Paucar), Mauro
Huamán Paucar, Narciso Huamán Paucar, and Melecio Chonta Huamán (Case
11.088); Pascual Chipana Huauya, Pelagia Chipana Condori, Paulina
Vásquez Esquivel, Donato Pablo, Juan Cacñahuaray, Jovita Cahuana,
Pelayo Capizo, and Pelagia Pillaca (Case 11.161); Jessica Rosa Chávez
Ruiz, Pedro Javier Cruz Guzmán, and Héctor Rodríguez Rodríguez (Case
11.292); Moisés Carvajal Quispe (Case 11.680); Luis Alberto Sangama
Panaifo and Lucio Escobal Fretel (Case 10.564), Arturo Torres Quispe
(Case 10.744); Percy Borja Gaspar, Angel Zanabria Ubaldo, Gumercindo
Ubaldo Zanabria, Apolonio Lazo Rodas, Hermilio Borja Ríos, Fredy Gaspar
Ríos, José Muñoz Huallpa, Ernesto Salomé Bravo, Jesús Pumahuali
Salomé, and César Sánchez Castro (Case 11.040); Máximo Muñoz Solís,
Levi Vivas Espinal, Alejandro Vera Suasnabar, Edgar Nestares Justo,
Javier Yañac Solano, Richard Lozano Cáceres, Oscar Cirino Baldeón
Chacón, Luis Alberto Ramírez Hinostroza, Teófilo Julio Lazo Chucos,
César Teobaldo Vilchéz Simeón, José Fierro Miche, and Elías Uchupe
Huamán (Case 11.126); Edith Galván Montero (Case 11.132); Esteban
Romero León, Moisés Poma Ordónez and Yolanda Lauri Arias (Case
11.179); Víctor Tineo Sandoval, Guillermina Quispe de Tineo, Eulogio
Demetrio Bohorquez Tineo, Ivan Roberto Tineo Rodríguez, and Elías
Bohorquez Tineo (Case 10.431); Concepción Ccacya
Barrientos, Maximiliana Sotaya, Donato Morán, Emiliana Puga, and
Fortunato Venegas (Case 10.523); Flaviano Sáens Chuquivilca, Edgar
Chaguayo Quispe, Miriam Lidia Navarro Concha, Miguel Angel Cieza Galván,
Socimo Curasma Sulla, Justiniano Fredy Vicente Rivera, Augusto Galindo
Peña, Juana Ñahui Vilcas, Luis Aníbal Naupari Toralva, Alejandro
Tunque Lizama, Eugenio Curasma Sulla, María Sánchez Retamozo, Edwin
Ramos Calderón, Gladys Espinoza León, Fernando Sáenz Munarris, Hugo
Puente Vega, Peter David Cosme Ureta (Case 11.064); and Camilo Nuñez
Quispe and Teófilo Nuñez Quispe (Case 11.200). In those petitions it was indicated that some of the
above-mentioned persons were extrajudicially executed by State agents,
and that the rest were victims of forced disappearances also perpetrated
by state agents.
2.
Once the petitions were received, the Commission opened each of
the cases and processed them individually, in keeping with the
provisions of the American Convention and the Regulations of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission’s
Regulations”). The State alleged inadmissibility for failure to
exhaust domestic remedies in some cases, and in others it merely
reported on the course of the investigation.
Bearing in mind the uniformity in the current stage of processing
in all the cases, which makes it possible to resolve them together, the
common characteristics of the facts alleged, the common time frame, and
the fact that they all refer to allegations of extrajudicial executions
or forced disappearances attributed to State agents, the Commission
decided to combine the foregoing cases and proceed to resolve them
together, pursuant to Article 40 of its Regulations.
3.
In this report, the Commission decides to admit the cases, and to
rule on the merits. In this
respect, the Inter-American Commission determines that the Peruvian
State is responsible for the extrajudicial execution of some victims,
and for the forced disappearance of all the others, and finds that Peru
violated, to the detriment of the victims, with the particulars
indicated in each case, the human rights to personal liberty, humane
treatment, a fair trial, judicial protection, special measures of
protection, and juridical personality, enshrined in Articles 7, 5, 8,
25, 19, and 3, respectively, of the American Convention.
The Commission also makes the pertinent recommendations to the
Peruvian State, which have to do with nullifying the domestic provisions
and judicial decisions that tend to impede the investigation, trial, and
punishment of the persons responsible for the human rights violations in
question; to perform a serious, exhaustive, impartial, and effective
investigation to determine the individual responsibilities for those
violations, to punish the persons responsible, and to pay compensation
to the victims’ families for the human rights violations found.
The IACHR also recommends that the Peruvian State accede to the
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.
II.
FACTS ALLEGED, PROCESSING, AND POSITION OF THE STATE
A. Cases of
Extrajudicial Executions
1. Luis Miguel
Pasache Vidal (Case 10.247)
Facts
alleged
4.
Pursuant to the complaint submitted to the IACHR by the Asociación
Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), on Saturday, August 13, 1988, five
men in civilian dress who identified themselves as members of the
Investigative Police, Anti-Terrorism Sub-directorate (PIP) detained Luis
Miguel Pasache Vidal, 34 years of age, former student at the Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, at his domicile, located at Calle
Justo Pastor Bravo, interior 57, in San Martín de Porres, Lima, on
suspicion of terrorism. Mr. Pasache Vidal had worked as a taxi driver during the two
years prior to his detention, after having served a five-year prison
sentence imposed for belonging to the Movimiento Revolucionario
Túpac Amaru (MRTA). The
day after his detention, his corpse was found by fishermen at the Puerto
Viejo beach, with a gunshot wound in the head. Even so, the autopsy
recorded the cause of death as “asphyxia by submersion”; the family
members were not informed that the corpse had been discovered until
September 22, 1988. The next day, on September 23, 1988, the newspapers published
the news, asserting that the “Rodrigo Franco Paramilitary Command”
had assumed responsibility, in retaliation for the kidnapping of Gen.
Héctor Jerí García.
5.
The initiatives taken by the victim’s family before the
Peruvian authorities proved fruitless.
The first, August 22, 1988, was a habeas
corpus action submitted before the 37th Court of Investigation of
Lima, which was declared inadmissible since there was no record in any
police office of the detention of Luis Miguel Pasache Vidal.
The second was a complaint for kidnapping lodged with the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor for Criminal Matters of Lima on August 31,
1988, against the Director General of the Police Forces, the Senior
Director of the Investigative Police of Peru, the Deputy Director of the
Office of the Deputy Director against Terrorism, and others, without any
investigation whatsoever into the matter.
Processing
before the Commission
6.
The Commission opened the case on October 14, 1988, and forwarded
the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Peruvian State, and asked it
to provide information on the facts alleged.
The request for information was reiterated on February 23, 1989,
September 7, 1989, and August 3, 1992. The
Peruvian State responded on September 2, 1993, and on September 16,
1993, it corroborated the information it had submitted.
7.
On April 13, 2000, the Commission asked the parties to submit
up-to-date information on any progress in the proceedings initiated in
this case in the domestic jurisdiction, and on the exhaustion of
domestic remedies, or their current status, giving each of the parties
45 days to respond. In
addition, in the same note, the Commission made itself available to the
parties to pursue a friendly settlement, in keeping with Article
48(1)(f) of the Convention. Once
the term expired, there was not agreement between the parties to pursue
a friendly settlement. The
State answered on August 2, 2000.
The
State’s position
8.
The State, in its responses of September 3 and 21, 1993, did not
controvert the facts, and alleged that “the person of Pasache Vidal
Luis Miguel is not on record in the log books of detainees kept at the
OCD-DINCOTE for 1988.” As
regards the finding of the corpse, it noted that it was found August 13,
1988, by fishermen at the beach of Puerto Viejo, and that according to
the autopsy, the cause of death was “asphyxiation by submersion,”
though he had a gunshot wound in the skull.
It added that “there is no document of the 38th Provincial
Prosecutor for Criminal Matters of Lima on record related to the alleged
kidnapping of Luis M. Vidal,” and that the investigations were
archived on September 19, 1988, because it was not possible to identify
the persons responsible. The
State indicated that it was for this reason that it did not consider it
advisable to pursue a friendly settlement.
2. Walter Wilfredo
Valer Munaylla (Case 10.472)
Facts
alleged
9.
According to the petition submitted to the IACHR by the Andean
Commission of Jurists, on September 20, 1989, Walter Wilfredo Valer
Munaylla, 20 years of age, secondary school student, was detained by
members of the Peruvian Army when he went to the “Los Cabitos”
barracks to obtain a document related to his military service. His
corpse was found, with signs of torture, on October 7, 1989, at the door
of his workplace in the La Magdalena neighborhood.
Four days later, on October 11, 1989, his sister, Marlene Rita
Valer, 14 years of age, secondary school student, was detained by
uniformed members of the Peruvian Army, at Calle Ramón Castilla, cuadra
Nº 4, in the city of Huamanga, department of Ayacucho. The detention
was witnessed by an eight-year-old student.
In the observations, the complainant argued that there was no
effective investigation, and the armed forces deny having carried out
the detention. The facts
described were reported to the local authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
10.
On October 13, 1989, the Commission opened the case and
transmitted the pertinent parts of the complaint to the State, at the
same time requesting information on the facts alleged. The Commission
reiterated the request for information on March 7, 1990, and April 12,
1990. The State answered on
April 24, 1990. Both
parties provided additional information on several occasions.
11.
On May 2, 2000, the Commission asked both parties to provide
up-to-date information within 45 days.
In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the
parties’ disposal to pursue a friendly settlement.
When this period expired, there was no agreement to pursue a
friendly settlement. On
July 6, 2000, the State forwarded its observations, which were
transmitted to the petitioner on July 14, 2000.
The State sent additional information on August 9, 2000, which
was forwarded to the petitioner on September 20, 2000.
The
State’s position
12.
The State initially denied the participation of military
personnel from the Peruvian armed forces in the detention and later
disappearance of the child Marlene Rita Valer Munaylla, and in the
detention and later summary execution of Walter Wilfredo Valer Munaylla.
It also reported that the case on the homicide of Walter Wilfredo
Valer Munaylla was brought before the 1st Mixed Provincial Prosecutor of
Huamanga, Ayacucho. Later,
the Peruvian State requested that the case be archived, arguing that
since 1990 the petitioner had lost interest in the case and also because
in the police report, sent to the Second Mixed Provincial Prosecutor of
Huamanga, it was learned that members of the group Shining Path stated
they had executed Miguel Valer, the victim’s brother, and the victim
himself was held on March 20, 1989, for allegedly committing a crime
against property, it being deduced, based on this information, that
Walter Wilfredo Valer was assassinated by a terrorist group, which must
have taken him for his brother, Miguel Valer.
The State also adduced that Marlene Rita Valer Munaylla had been
released the afternoon of the day she was detained, and that she
currently was residing with Mr. Oscar Cueto Gastelu in the city of
Huamanga, as corroborated by the parents of the alleged victim.
The State added that the “record of finding of survival dated
June 2, 2000,” signed by Marleny R. Valer, a copy of the “national
identity document,” and her “higher education” card.
The State attached to the last report a copy of the statement by
Félix Valer Zárate, the victim’s father, in which he describes his
daughter’s release after being stopped.
3.
Nilton Adelmo Loli Mauricio, Saturnino Serrate García, and Esaú
Daniel Moreno Cotrina (Case 10.805)
Facts
alleged
13.
According to the petition submitted to the IACHR by the Asociación
Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), on May 14, 1990, 15 members of the
Peruvian Police, Special Operations Division (DOES) forcibly entered the
installations of the secondary school Colegio Nacional “Victoria
Andrés Belaúnde,” in the city of Llaclla, district of Abelardo
Pardo Lezama, province of Bolognesi, department of Ancash, and detained
three citizens: Nilton Adelmo Loli Mauricio, 28 years of age, teacher,
and the director of the school; Saturnino Serrate García, professor at
the same school; and Esaú Daniel Moreno Cotrina, a student’s father.
According to the complaint, the police authorities of the city of
Huaraz did not admit to the detention and communicated that the
detentions were by members of the DOES, of the General Police of Lima.
The petitioner added that the events occurred after an incursion
by Shining Path in Chiaquian, capital of the province of Bolognesi, on
April 16, 1990. The three
victims’ corpses, with gunshot wounds in the temple, were found and
recognized by the families. Petitioner
further alleges that 25 corpses bound, some mutilated, in an advanced
state of putrefaction, which appear to correspond to the persons
disappeared in the zone, were also found in a common grave, at the
Canchis mine in the district of Jacamarquilla, province of Bolognesi.
Complainant states that members of the National Police quartered
in Conocoha, Coorpanqui and Raján patrolled the place to impede any
investigation of the common grave.
These facts were made known to the Superior Prosecutor (Fiscal
Superior Decano) of Ancaci on June 5, 1990.
Processing
before the Commission
14.
On March 14, 1991, the Commission opened the case and transmitted
the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting
that it provide information on the facts alleged.
The State responded on September 30, 1991, and on October 23,
1992, it amended its response. Both
parties submitted additional information on several occasions.
15.
On June 13, 2000, the Commission requested of both parties that
they provide up-to-date information within 45 days.
In this last communication, the Commission made itself available
to the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, in keeping with Article
48(1)(f) of the Convention. Once
the term expired, there was not agreement between the parties to pursue
a friendly settlement. The
State answered on July 26, 2000.
The
State’s position
16.
In its initial response the State affirmed that the Peruvian
armed forces are not implicated by act or omission in the detention and
disappearance of the alleged victims, and added that their names do not
appear on record as having been detained, nor are there any records of
their deaths. In the
observations forwarded on September 6, 1994, the State adduced that the
supposed finding of 21 corpses was refuted, as deduced from a direct
on-site inspection. The
State also reported that there is an arrest warrant outstanding for
Esaú Moreno Cotrina in a criminal proceeding by the Peruvian judicial
authorities for the crime of terrorism.
Based on the foregoing, and on the failure to exhaust domestic
remedies, the State indicated that the Office of the Special Provincial
Human Rights Prosecutor of Ancash pursued the investigation, and that as
the complaint and allegations involved members of the police, the Office
of the Prosecutor, based on Law Nº 26,479, also known as the “Amnesty
Law,” issued a resolution dated January 2, 1996, and archived the
investigation, with prejudice. The
Peruvian State did not consider it advisable to pursue a friendly
settlement.
4.
Javier Alberto Ipanaque Marcelo, Guillermo Salinas Conde, Fidel Romero
Conde, Uriol Tafur Ayala, Víctor Manuel Briceño García, and Eusebio
Aniceto Garay (Case 10.878)
Facts
alleged
17.
According to the petition submitted to the IACHR by the Centro
de Estudios y Acción para la Paz (CEAPAZ), on May 3, 1991, members
of the Peruvian Army were seen halting traffic on the highway prior to
reaching Huamaya and Andahuasi, where there is a military base.
Between 12:40 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., in the locality of Huamaya and
Chambara, located on the road to the military base at Andahuasi,
province of Huaura, department of Lima, several armed men wearing Army
clothes, some with bulletproof vests, and with their faces covered by
black ski masks, sought out several persons by their respective names,
forcibly entered their homes, and assassinated them.
In Huamaya, Milagros Ipanaque Marcelo was taken by the armed
group to identify the house of her brother, Javier Ipanaque Marcelo, who
they assassinated with two gunshot wounds.
They did the same to Guillermo Salinas Conde and Fidel Romero
Conde. At 3:00 a.m. in
Chambara they executed Uriel Tafur Ayala, Víctor Manuel Briceño
García, and Eusebio Aniceto Garay Anaya.
They made inscriptions alluding to subversive groups on the walls
of the towns which were not those used by the subversive groups. After
the summary executions the agents continued on the route to the
barracks. The facts
described were reported to the local authorities, and were preceded by
an attack perpetrated by the Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru
on April 23, 1991, at kilometer 153 of the Pan American Highway north of
Lima, in which four soldiers were killed.
The petitioner attributes the incident to members of the Army,
and includes a copy of sections of the investigation carried out by the
Senate Committee, which is the source of the evidence it presents to
support its assertion.
18.
Finally, the petitioner reports that in none of the cases of
human rights violations from 1980 to June 1995 has it been possible to
investigate or punish the persons responsible, because of the Amnesty
Laws, Nos. 26,479 and 26,492.
Processing
before the Commission
19.
On May 17, 1991, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the
pertinent parts to the State, which it asked to provide information on
the facts alleged. The
State answered on July 18, 1991. The
petitioner submitted observations to the State’s response on September
13, 1991. The State
submitted its reply to the petitioner’s observations on February 7,
1992. Both parties
presented additional information on several occasions.
20.
On May 2, 2000, the Commission requested of both parties that
they provide up-to-date information within 45 days.
In this last communication, the Commission made itself available
to the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, in keeping with Article
48(1)(f) of the Convention. Once
the term expired, there was not agreement between the parties to pursue
a friendly settlement.
The
State’s position
21.
In its initial response, the State denied the participation of
the members of the armed forces in the facts, attributing responsibility
instead to the terrorist groups that operate in that area.
In the subsequent reports, the State reported that in the police
investigations it had been proven that the perpetrators were members of
the terrorist group Shining Path. Finally,
the State communicated that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
ordered the provisional archiving of the investigation for not having
succeeded in identifying and arresting the perpetrators.
5.
Juan Hualla Choquehuanca, Francisco Atamari Mamani, Feliciano Turpo
Valeriano, and Roberto Quispe Mamani (Case 10.913)
22.
According to the petition submitted to the IACHR by the Centro
de Estudios y Acción para la Paz (CEAPAZ), on May 19, 1991, at the
place called Puncopata, in the district of Orurillo, province of Melgar,
department of Puno, members of the group Shining Path stole the bicycles
of Juan Hualla Choquehuanca, Francisco Atamari Mamani, Feliciano Turpo
Valeriano, and Roberto Quispe Mamani, all members of the peasant
community of Sillota, who followed these persons for the sole purpose of
recovering their means of transportation.
When they reached the bridge at Ajllamayo, the four peasants were
forced to follow the insurgents to the community of Chilliutira.
After the confrontation, the four peasants from the community of
Sillota were detained by members of the community of Chilliutira.
The captured community members were placed under the custody of a
patrol that included thirty Army soldiers, under the command of Second
Lieutenant José Loayza Gutiérrez.
That patrol transferred the four peasants to the SAIS at Posoconi,
where the members of the security forces communicated with their
respective bases. From
there the four peasants were taken, still alive, to the city of Ayaviri.
This was the last time the witnesses saw the four peasants alive.
The next day, May 21, Army Major Teodoro Guevara Ugaz went to the
Investigative Court of Ayaviri requesting the official act of removing
the bodies be performed in respect of six corpses at the “Los Tigres”
military base, in that city. The
corpses included the four peasants who are the subject of this
complaint. The official
report indicated that the corpses were of subversives who died in an
armed confrontation with members of the Army at Chiquiri.
The facts described were reported to the local authorities, and
the autopsy of the victims found contusions in several parts of the body
caused before they died, and gunshot wounds from a short distance and
vertical trajectory, three in the skull, evidencing signs of torture and
summary execution.
23.
The petitioner alleged lack of jurisdiction of the military
criminal courts, which by ruling of the Supreme Court took cognizance of
the case and ordered that charges be dismissed in the prosecution for
the crime of negligent homicide (homicidio
culposo).
Processing
before the Commission
24.
On July 2, 1991, the Commission opened the case and transmitted
the pertinent parts of the complaint to the State, which it asked to
provide information on the facts alleged.
The State responded on September 23, 1992, and sent additional
information on May 20, 1993. The
petitioner presented its observations to the State’s response on
February 28, 1994. Both
parties submitted additional information on several occasions.
25. On April 25, 2000, the Commission asked both parties to provide up-to-date information, and asked them to respond within 45 days. In this last communication, the Commission made itself available to the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, in keeping with Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention. Once the term expired, there was no agreement between the parties to pursue a friendly settlement. The petitioner answered on June 8, 2000, and the State did so on June 12, 2000. The
State’s position
26.
The State indicated that a case was opened in the domestic
jurisdiction, case number 3163-91, before the Investigative Court of the
Province of Melgar. For
this reason, it asked that the case be declared inadmissible since
domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
In its initial response, it indicated that accusations were
lodged in the civilian jurisdiction against Second Lieutenant José
Loayza Gutiérrez and Major Teodoro Guevara Ugas, for the crime of
aggravated homicide, and that when the jurisdictional conflict arose
between the civilian and military jurisdictions, the Supreme Court
ordered the investigation to be removed to the military jurisdiction.
In its later observations, the State simply reported that the
four alleged victims were shot by personnel from the patrol when they
tried to escape, after having been ordered to stop.
Later, the State communicated that the Supreme Council of
Military Justice affirmed the decision of dismissal given by the
court-martial (Consejo de Guerra)
of the Third Judicial Zone of Arequipa for Second Lieutenant José
Loayza Gutiérrez and Major Teodoro Guevara Ugas.
Based on the existence of this domestic proceeding, the State
asked that the case be declared inadmissible on grounds of failure to
exhaust domestic remedies. Accordingly,
the State did not consider it appropriate to pursue a friendly
settlement.
6.
Guillermo Marín Arenas, Gerardo Chaico, his wife Cirila de Chaico and
her five-year-old son, Cirila de Chaico’s sister and her two-year-old
son, and six unidentified persons (Case 10.947)
Facts
alleged
27.
According to the petition submitted to the IACHR by the Centro de
Estudios y Acción para la Paz (CEAPAZ), on September 2, 1991, members
of the Peruvian Army arrived at the hamlet of U.T.C., an area under the
control of the armed forces, and assassinated 12 people.
After appropriating the property of Gerardo Chaico, they burned
the dwelling. There they
slit the throat of Gerardo Chaico and cut him open from the chest to the
abdominal area; they shot his wife Cirila and assassinated their
five-year-old son, Cirila de Chaico’s sister, and her two-year-old
son. They assassinated
Guillermo Marín Arenas using a cutting instrument. They also assassinated six more unidentified peasants. The
facts were alleged by members of the community in the domestic
jurisdiction, without any results.
Processing
before the Commission
28.
On September 18, 1991, the Commission opened the case and
transmitted the pertinent parts of the complaint to the State,
requesting that it provide information on the facts alleged.
The State responded on November 8, 1991.
The petitioner submitted its observations to the State’s
response on February 3, 1992. The petitioner provided additional
information on May 5, 1992.
29.
On April 25, 2000, the Commission asked both parties to provide
additional information within 45 days.
In this last communication, the Commission made itself available
to the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, in keeping with Article
48(1)(f) of the American Convention.
Once the term expired, there was no agreement between the parties
to pursue a friendly settlement. The petitioner provided the information
requested on June 8, 2000.
The
State’s position
30.
In its initial response, the State reported that Gerardo Chaico
and Cirila de Chaico had not been detained by the Peruvian Army.
7. Teodoro Lorenzo
Alvarado Castillo (Case 10.994)
Facts
alleged
31.
According to the petition submitted to the IACHR by the Asociación
Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), on March 11, 1991, eight soldiers
from the Peruvian Army forcibly entered the home of Teodoro Alvarado
Chancahualla, located in the hamlet of Huaycalla, and arbitrarily
detained his son, Teodoro Lorenzo Alvarado Castillo, 29 years of age.
Mr. Alvarado Castillo continued to be held that night in the
school at Sayla, which they used as a military barracks, and the next
day, March 12, 1991, the members of the Army ordered his transfer to the
city of Cotahuasi, capital of the province of La Unión.
Mr. Alvarado Castillo was executed; the soldiers explained that
he had tried to escape and that therefore they shot him.
The petitioner asserts that it was an extrajudicial execution,
because the victim was defenseless and suffered muscular problems, which
hindered him from trying to flee; moreover, Teodoro Alvarado was
tortured the night before his assassination, and he had gunshot wounds
in the back.
Processing
before the Commission
32.
On March 23, 1992, the Commission opened the case and forwarded
the pertinent parts of the complaint to the State, and requested
information on the facts alleged. The
State answered on September 23, 1992, and it provided additional
information on October 27, 1992, and June 14, 1994.
33.
On April 25, 2000, the Commission requested that the State and
petitioners provide up-to-date information about the case, asking the
parties to answer within 45 days. In
the same note, the Commission made itself available to the parties to
facilitate a friendly settlement pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the
American Convention. Once
the term expired, there was not agreement between the parties to pursue
a friendly settlement.
The
State’s position
34.
The State argued that in relation to this case, criminal
proceedings were under way under number 1866-92, before the Standing
Court-Martial (Consejo de Guerra Permanente) for the Third Judicial Zone of the
Army for the crime of negligent homicide (homicidio
culposo).
8. Raúl Antero
Cajacuri Roca (Case 11.035)
Facts
alleged
35.
According to the petition submitted to the IACHR by the Asociación
Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), on February 16, 1991, members of the
military, using ski masks and heavily armed, entered the residence,
located at Calle Chanchamayo 397, district and province of Tarma,
department of Junín, which was the home of Raúl Antero Cajacuri Roca,
48 years old, retired teacher, former secretary of the Movimiento
Libertad. Professor
Cajacuri Roca was detained without being told the motive, and apparently
was taken to the military base at Tarma in a light-colored pick-up
parked at the intersection of Amazonas and Chanchamayo streets.
The child Dante Fabricio Cajacuri Ortiz, the victim’s son, and
Peruvian police agent Bayona Quezada Martínez, were witnesses to these
events. The next day, Lucía Roca Vásquez and Julia Ortiz de Cajacuri,
the victim’s mother and wife, respectively, looked for the detainee at
that military unit, where they denied he was detained there, but they
found out that he had been transferred to the military base at Jauja.
There, the military authorities admitted he was detained, and
stated they were going to transfer Mr. Cajacuri Roca to the military
base at Chilca, in Huancayo, but that unit reported that Mr. Cajacuri
Roca did not appear on the list of persons detained.
36.
The petitioner indicated that the facts were reported to the
provincial prosecutor for Huancayo.
The respective judge inspected the military base at Jauja, but
did not find the detainee. They
found his corpse on April 9, 1991, on the banks of the Mantaro river,
district of Ataura, province of Jauja, department of Junín, with the
feet and hands bound. In the autopsy, the cause of death recorded was
“asphyxia due to submersion” and the wounds were described as caused
by a sharp instrument in the chest, which leads petitioner to conclude
he was tortured. The police
investigation, according to police report Nº 89-PC-JP-PT, concluded by
stating “that personnel from the Peruvian Army in civilian dress, not
identified, are the presumed
perpetrators of the kidnapping of Mr. Raúl Antero Cajacuri Roca ...
and in addition that ... they are
the presumed perpetrators of the murder.”
As a result, that Office of the Provincial Prosecutor ordered
that the investigation be referred to the Chief of the “Andrés
Avelino Cáceres” Political-Military Command of the Region, to carry
out the investigation. Nonetheless,
on March 17, 1993, the Office of the Mixed Prosecutor of Tarma ordered
that the investigation be provisionally archived on grounds that the
perpetrators had not been identified.
37.
The complainant considers that an adequate investigation has not
been carried out, one which would have sufficient grounds for reaching
another result, and that therefore the inquiry should be reopened.
Processing
before the Commission
38.
On July 13, 1992, the Commission re-opened the case and
transmitted the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Peruvian State,
and requested information on the facts alleged.
On September 16, 1992, the State answered, and submitted
additional information on February 8, 1993.
The petitioner submitted its observations to the State’s answer
on March 30, 1993. The
State submitted additional information on February 18, 1994 and August
17, 1998.
39.
On May 1, 2000, the Commission asked the State and petitioners to
provide up-to-date information about the case, asking the parties to
answer within 45 days. In
the same note, the Commission made itself available to the parties to
facilitate a friendly settlement pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the
American Convention. Once
the term expired, there was not agreement between the parties to pursue
a friendly settlement.
The
State’s position
40.
In its initial report the State communicated that the military
authorities denied any participation in the detention and later
assassination of Raúl Antero Cajacuri Roca, while the investigation
undertaken by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Human Rights
of Huancayo pointed to unidentified personnel of the Peruvian Army as
being responsible. Later
the State asked the Commission to declare this case inadmissible, by
virtue of the petitioner’s silence and the consequent standstill in
the processing of the complaint, and for failure to exhaust domestic
remedies, based on the fact that as of the date of the complaint a
preliminary inquiry was under way aimed at determining the facts.
9.
Adrián Medina Puma (Case 11.051)
Facts
alleged
41.
According to the petition submitted to the IACHR by the Asociación
Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), on July 8, 1992, in the district of
San Isidro, in Lima, Adrián Medina Puma, 36 years of age, former
employee and former secretary general of the trade union at the company Equipo
de Transportadores Militares S.A. (ETRAMSA), of the Armed forces,
was arrested by two men in civilian dress, allegedly associated with the
Dirección Nacional Contra el Terrorismo (DINCOTE).
The events occurred at 6 p.m. when Mr. Medina Puma was walking
along Machaypata street with Eudes Navarro Gamboa, a former colleague
from work, and his son Rosendo, 3 years old.
The men identified themselves as members of DINCOTE and berated
him over the labor dispute at ETRAMSA, which had dismissed him without
justification. The victim’s
corpse was found the next day in the city, with gunshot wounds in the
head, chest, abdomen, and lower and upper limbs.
42.
The family reported what happened to the corresponding
authorities, and reported that Adrián Medina Puma had been dismissed
arbitrarily for directing a strike in 1989, which is why the Second
Labor Court of Callao, in a judgment of January 21, 1993, ordered that
he be re-hired; that decision was affirmed by the Superior Labor Court
(Tribunal de Trabajo) weeks after his death.
In addition, the deceased had been detained on two prior
occasions, the first in September 1990, the second on June 3, 1992, due
to the fact two brothers of his were being tried for terrorism.
43.
The petitioner reiterated that in May 1991, in a report to the
magazine Sí, Adrián Medina Puma denounced that he and his
entire family were being persecuted by the Peruvian Army, since his
unjustified dismissal by the directors of ETRAMSA, who refused to
recognize the rulings of the labor courts. From that moment the
persecution and harassment by the police and members of DIRCOTE began.
Finally, the petitioner explained that there is sufficient
evidence to conclude that the perpetrators of the crime are members of
the State security forces. In
addition, the petitioner argues that it is up to the Peruvian State to
carry out an in-depth investigation to identify the perpetrators and
prevent any repetition of extrajudicial executions such as this.
Processing
before the Commission
44.
On August 24, 1992, the Commission opened the case and forwarded
the pertinent parts of the complaint to the State, asking that it
provide information on the facts alleged.
The State responded on October 26, 1992, and sent additional
information on June 17, 1993. The
petitioner presented observations to the State’s response on September
24, 1993. Both parties
submitted additional information on several occasions.
45.
On May 1, 2000, the Commission asked that the State and
petitioners provide up-to-date information on the case within 45 days.
In the same note, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of
the parties for the purpose of facilitating a friendly settlement, as
provided for in Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention. Once the term had expired, there was no agreement by the
parties to pursue a friendly settlement.
The
State’s position
46.
In the initial report, the State communicated that the police
investigations were continuing but had yielded no positive results. In the next report, the State affirmed that a proceeding was
under way in relation to this case before the District Justice of the
Peace (Juzgado de Paz Comarcal)
of Costa Cuca, but that the perpetrators had not been identified. Nonetheless, the State ruled out the possibility that they
might be police agents from DINCOTE, because that unit did not have
Chevrolet vehicles such as those used to consummate the criminal act.
It added that the only witness, Eudes Najarri Gamboa, did not
provide any information that would make it possible to attribute the
kidnapping and later homicide to DINCOTE personnel, and there was no
motive whatsoever for detaining the victim, because the two times he was
detained, there was no evidence that he was committing the crime of
terrorism. The State operated under the hypothesis that they were
reprisals from the terrorist group Shining Path because alongside the
corpse was a note taking credit for the crime.
In its last communication, the State asked that the petition be
declared inadmissible for lack of foundation.
10.
Rafael Ventocilla Rojas, Marino Ventocilla Rojas, Alejandro Ventocilla
Castillo, Simón Ventocilla Castillo, Paulino Ventocilla Castillo, and
Rubén Ventocilla León (Case 11.057)
Facts
alleged
47.
According to the petition presented to the IACHR by the Asociación
Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), on June 24, 1992, at 3 a.m.,
10 to 15 heavily armed persons, including a woman in commando dress,
allegedly linked to paramilitary groups, looking like members of the
military, wearing uniforms and boots similar to those of the Army,
violently entered the home of the Ventocilla Castillo family, in Santa
Ana neighborhood, Sejetuto, district of Santa María, province of Huara,
department of Lima, and kidnapped Rafael Ventocilla Rojas, his brother
Marino, his children Alejandro, Simón, and Paulino, and his grandson
Rubén. They were also
alleged to have stolen a tape recorder with radio, and 480 soles.
The next day, June 25, 1992, the victims’ corpses were located
on a farm situated in the hamlet of Balconcillo, 8 km from the road
between Huaura and Sayan, in a common grave, covered with lime.
The bodies showed signs of torture, wounds with cutting
instruments and gunshot wounds in the temple.
The facts described were reported to the local authorities by
Mrs. Catalina Castillo León, the wife of Rafael Ventocilla Rojas, who,
while they were unfolding, went to the police posts located a few
kilometers from Santa Ana, at the Huaura bridge and at Cruz Blanca, in
search of help, but the police refused to help her.
48.
The petitioner reported that Rafael Ventocilla Rojas was an
active member of the Popular Action Party (Partido Acción Popular),
and for 10 years was mayor of the district of Cochamarca, province of
Ollán, department of Lima; and that he stepped down from this position
due to death threats from members of Shining Path.
Because of this, the victim went to live in Santa Ana, where he
work in farming and stock-raising with his son Paulino.
Brothers Simón Ventocilla, former secretary-general of the
Single Trade Union of Education Workers of Norte Chico, and Alejandro
Ventocilla, were teachers and activists with the UNIR, a member of the
Izquierda Unida alliance. In
addition, the petitioner reports that earlier, on April 25, 1992, Rafael
Ventocilla Rojas and his sons had been detained by members of the
Peruvian Army, and were held 24 hours at the Military Base of Atahuampa,
in the northern part of the province of Huaura, on charges of terrorism,
and were subjected to severe interrogation.
The petitioner reiterates that these facts are part of the
practice of extrajudicial executions in the northern provinces of the
department of Lima, which increased since early 1992, including the
assassinations of journalist Pedro Yauri Bustamante, the Rodríguez
Pacuar family, and six members of the communities of Caraqueño and
Pampas de San José, who were also tortured and executed with the use of
firearms.
49. Finally, the petition considered that a criminal investigation that had begun and was archived without specifying the perpetrators should be re-opened to take the steps needed to identify the perpetrators of the crimes.
Processing
before the Commission
50.
On November 13, 1992, the Commission opened the case and
forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the State, and
requested information on the facts alleged.
The State answered on February 13, 1993.
The petitioner sent observations on the State’s response on
April 1, 1993. On May 4,
1994, the State submitted its observations to the petitioner’s reply.
51.
On April 25, 2000, the Commission requested the State and
petitioners to provide up-to-date information about the case, asking the
parties to answer within 45 days. In
the same note, the Commission made itself available to the parties to
facilitate a friendly settlement pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the
American Convention. Once
the term expired, there was not agreement between the parties to pursue
a friendly settlement. The State provided updated information about this
case on June 9, 2000.
The
State’s position
52.
In its initial report, the Peruvian State indicated that the
perpetrators of the homicide of the six members of the Ventocilla family
were presumably members of the terrorist group Shining Path. Later, the
State reported that on June 30, 1992, the provincial prosecutor asked
that the investigation be opened; it was archived on July 15, 1992,
considering that the persons responsible were not identified, and it was
concluded that the crimes could not be attributed to members of the
armed forces. In addition,
the State admitted that previously, on April 27, 1992, Rafael Ventocilla
Rojas, Alejandro Ventocilla Castillo, Simón Ventocilla Castillo, and
Paulino Ventocilla Castillo were detained at the Atahuampa military
base, district of Santa María, suspected of supporting terrorist
elements in the zone; they were released on April 28, 1992.
In addition, it stated that on August 31, 1990, the father of one
of the victims went before the judge in charge of the proceedings to
reiterate his complaint, and to add that on August 29, 1990, he learned
that his son’s corpse was at the morgue.
The State noted that according to the information that came out
in the investigation, the facts alleged should be attributed to common
crime, and not to members of the Peruvian security forces.
In the report dated June 9, 2000, the State communicated that the
investigation was archived provisionally, because the persons
responsible were not identified, and therefore it deemed that it was not
advisable to pursue a friendly settlement.
11.
Ricardo Salazar Ruiz (Case 11.065)
Facts
alleged
53.
According to the petition submitted to the IACHR by the Oficina
Prelatural de Acción Social, on June 22, 1992, a Peruvian Army
patrol detained Ricardo Salazar Ruiz, 38, merchant, at his home located
in the district of San José de Sisa, and executed him.
The corpse was found on June 24, 1992 on the sidewalk where the
victim’s sister lives. During
the official act of removing the body, signs of torture and gunshot
wounds were documented in the back and both legs. According to the
petition, at 4:00 a.m., Army soldiers told the sister about finding her
brother’s body. The facts
were reported to the provincial prosecutor of Lamas by family members.
Processing
before the Commission
54.
On October 16, 1992, the Commission opened the case and forwarded
the pertinent parts of the complaint to the State, and requested
information on the facts alleged. The
Peruvian state answered on December 23, 1992 and sent additional
information on February 16, 1993, December 2, 1993 and on April 25,
1994.
55.
On April 25, 2000, the Commission asked the State and the
petitioner to submit up-to-date information on this case within 45 days.
In the same communication, the Commission made itself available
to the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, in keeping with Article
48(1)(f) of the Convention. Once
the term expired, there was not agreement between the parties to pursue
a friendly settlement. The
State provided up-to-date information on the case on June 9, 2000.
The
State’s position
56.
In its initial response, the State indicated that it had asked
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Lamas to report on the
results of the investigation into the murder of Ricardo Salazar Ruiz.
In the following reports, the State sent a copy of the records of
its initial inquiries. In
the last report, the State maintained that based on the complaint by
Amparo G. Díaz, the victim’s sister, and other witnesses, on
September 11, 1995 the mixed jurisdiction judge of Lamas initiated
Criminal Proceeding Nº
42/95, which established that Ricardo Salazar Ruiz was captured by an
army patrol commanded by Captain Pedro Pablo Cairampoma Mendoza.
The State added that after giving information on the whereabouts
of arms and terrorist groups, Mr. Salazar Ruiz, under orders of the
cited officer, left with the patrol commanded by Lt. Williams Leyva
Cárdenas, which was ambushed by subversive elements, and that Mr.
Salazar Ruiz was killed in combat.
Lt. Leyva, obeying the orders of Captain Cairampoma, handed over
the corpse to the victim’s sister.
Later, Lt. Leyva was killed in combat.
Finally, the State reported that by resolution of November 21,
1995, the Mixed Provincial Court of Lamas, applying Law 26,479, declared
amnesty for Captain Pedro Pablo Cairampoma Mendoza, in a decision that
was not contested. The
victim’s family was notified and informed that they could bring a
civil action to receive compensation.
In view of the foregoing, the State did not deem it advisable to
pursue a friendly settlement.
[ Table
of Contents | Previous | Next ]
|