...continued

194.          Second, in terms of the characteristics of the perpetrators of the human rights violations, in all of the cases a several heavily armed persons committed the unlawful acts.  In most of the cases they used military uniforms or were in civilian dress and used ski caps to cover their faces.  In addition, in all the cases, it was known that they were perpetrated by members of the security forces or in joint actions with what were called the rondas civiles, which acted in their name or with their consent.  In addition, the judicial remedies that existed were ineffective for guaranteeing the right to life and related fundamental rights such as the right to privacy, liberty, and humane treatment.

195.          With respect to the modality used in the detention or execution, in only one case was the victim detained in flagrante delicto: [41] the arrest of Edith Galván, which occurred based on the accusation by a taxi driver who reported that a woman and two young men were the persons who tried to rob his car.  In five of these 15 cases, the persons responsible went to where the victims were; in one of those cases they executed three of the victims immediately and detained another, whose whereabouts remain unknown. [42] In four of these seven cases, [43] the persons responsible for the executions went to where the victims were and executed them on the spot.  In eight of the 17 cases, [44] the modus operandi used was initially capturing the victim, then taking him or her to an unknown place or to military or police units.  Days later, the corpse would be found in some place in the area where the victim was captured or from the military base where he or she was presumably detained, or the victims simply disappeared.

196.          Finally, another common characteristic was the veil of impunity covering the human rights violators, as existing judicial remedies were ineffective for guaranteeing the right to life and the related fundamental rights, such as the right to liberty and humane treatment.  For example, in four of these cases, the victim’s families filed writs of habeas corpus, but to no avail, and in all the cases, the facts were reported to the domestic judicial authorities, but no investigation has concluded, and the persons responsible continue to benefit from impunity.  Finally, the official denial of the detentions was the common denominator that hindered efforts to find the victims who were detained and disappeared or detained and executed alive.  Despite the notoriety of the detentions, in those cases in which the families knew, from the outset, the initial place of detention or the barracks to which they were taken, the respective authorities denied it.  That indicator, as previously established by the Commission, gives meaning to the practice and the reason for keeping it clandestine:

The fact that the authorities deny the detention, thus, merely confirms the clandestine nature of the military operations.  The detention is not recorded or officially acknowledged, so as to make it possible to use torture during interrogation and, eventually, extrajudicial punishments imposed on persons considered sympathizers, collaborators, or members of the armed dissident groups.

197.          The third modus operandi displayed in the systematic practice of summary executions took place in the urban areas of the Peruvian State (Cases 10.247, 10.472, 10.805, and 11.292).  The modus operandi of the persons responsible for the extrajudicial executions was characterized, as in the previous cases, by the selection of the victims based on possible ties with one of the subversive groups, or regular occupation, and their execution after being detained.  In some cases, the bodies showed signs of torture prior to execution.

198.          In three cases, individuals identified as members of the police perpetrated the unlawful acts.  The persons responsible for the extrajudicial executions went to the place where the victim was found, even when the victim was accompanied by other persons, detained them, and once they had been tortured they were executed. [45]   In case 10.472, when the injured person, the brother of a person accused of being a member of a subversive group, went to the military base to obtain a document related to his military service, whereupon he was detained, tortured, and executed.

199.          The fourth pattern of conduct in the modus operandi deployed in the systematic practice of forced disappearances took place in the rural areas, specifically in the departments of Ayacucho and Junín, which were also under the strict control of the security forces of the Peruvian State, and of the so-called rondas civiles antisubversivas or civil defense committees, which were under the Political-Military Command; these are cases 10.744, 11.040, and 11.179.

200.          The forced disappearance of persons consummated by the civil defense committees followed a similar practice: the disappearances were systematic and selective; the victims were students, community members, and persons suspected of belonging to terrorist groups. In the three cases it was known that they were perpetrated by ronderos linked to the security forces, who acted on their behalf and with their acquiescence.

201.          Clear evidence of the joint work by the members of these civil defense committees and the armed forces of Peru in the counter-insurgency campaign is case 11.179, [46] in which the alleged victims were held by members of the Army and members of the civil defense committee of the Base at Rangra-Concepción, directed by Julio Cantorín Clemente, and two of them, Esteban Pallango Arango and Teófilo Romero León, reappeared at the military installation known as “Cuartel 9 de Diciembre” at Huancayo, as deserters who had been reinserted. At this point it should be clarified that based on the sequence of annexes provided by the petitioner, the deserters who had been “recovered” were really “Esteban Pallango Arango and Reynaldo Fidel Véliz” (Act of Inspection) and the possible confusion with respect to Teófilo Romero León arises from the fact that in the same document petitioner refers to, a third minor is mentioned, Teófilo Romero León. Nonetheless, the petition does not denounce his disappearance, but that of a minor who they initially identified as Rubén Romero León, whose real name, according to an explanation by the petitioner, is Esteban Romero León.  So, for the Commission the deserters who were “recovered” are Esteban Pallango Arango and Reinaldo Fidel Véliz, and Esteban (or Ruben) Romero León is still disappeared.

202.          Another item of evidence that reaffirms the State’s responsibility for the actions of the rondas campesinas in the struggle against the dissident groups is the legal framework that authorized their creation and authorized the peasants to bear arms and carry out security tasks generally performed by the forces of order, under the direct coordination of the Political-Military Command.  For this purpose, an infrastructure and functional distribution were put in place, similar to that of the military bodies to which they answered, as illustrated by the reports provided by the State, the first in case 11.040, in which the State indicated that the civil defense committees were created by Law 24,571 of November 6, 1986, and in the second, case 10.744, when it explained that “the Chief of the Los Cabitos 51 Counter-insurgency Base reported that the Self-Defense Committees of the jurisdiction of Huanta are under the supervision of that unit, including its files of ‘Daily communications and reports,’” and finally the version of Inés Castro, the wife of rondero Julio Cantorín, cited by the petitioner, in which she said “that her husband had an ID card issued by the President of the rondas campesinas of the Multisectoral Base at Huahuanca”; and finally, the objective and purpose undergirding their legal creation was precisely the counter-insurgency struggle.

203.          The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions stated as follows with respect to the joint work of the Peruvian Armed forces and the so-called rondas campesinas:

The reports and allegations received by the Special Rapporteur during 1994 indicate that violations of the right to life continue to occur in Peru. As in former years, such reports refer to killings due to abuse of force by law enforcement personnel and members of the rondas campesinas, peasant self‑defence groups cooperating with the security forces. In a large number of these cases, the victims are peasants suspected of being members or sympathizers of the armed insurgency. [47]

204.          Based on the foregoing analysis, the Commission concludes that the State legally created the rondas civiles, supplied them with weaponry, subordinated them operationally and functionally to the respective Political-Military Command, and these self-defense groups performed joint and coordinated tasks with the military forces in fighting the dissident groups.  Accordingly, they acted with the consent and license of the State, as agents linked to the State, and its practices, violative of human rights, were permitted and tolerated by the Peruvian State.

205.          Previously, the Commission addressed the subject of the armed civil self-defense organizations, provided for by law, and which cooperate with the security forces of a state, when it analyzed the human rights situation in Colombia.  In this respect, the IACHR analyzed the consequences of the participation of the Cooperativas de Vigilancia y Seguridad Privada, known as CONVIVIR, for the violence and armed conflict in Colombia, and stated:

In any case, the Commission has verified that in certain areas of the country the CONVIVIR participate both in intelligence and counterinsurgency operations for the Armed forces and that, as already explained in this Chapter of the Report, they have occasionally been involved in acts of violence. These elements demonstrate that, in practical terms, the nature of the activities carried out by the CONVIVIR operating in the areas of conflict place their members in a role that can be identified with that of State agents in terms of the international responsibility of the State. [48]

206.          The Commission, in the same report, section six, recommended to the Colombian State that it dismantle the services of the Cooperativas de Vigilancia y Seguridad Privada, or CONVIVIR, which it reiterated in the 1999 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

207.          After the foregoing analysis, the Commission finds that the relevant facts mentioned, alleged in the 25 petitions, are true with respect to the extrajudicial execution and forced disappearance, committed by agents of the Peruvian State, 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 Vílchez 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).  These extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances were part of State policy, a systematic policy of extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances perpetrated by State agents or persons linked to the State, and tolerated by the State, in a context of absolute impunity, protected by the State, in both deed and law, with the issuance and enforcement of the Amnesty Laws.

E.          Considerations of law

The right to life

208.          Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights declares: “Every person has the right to have his life respected.... No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”  The protection of the right to life has a dual connotation: first, no one may be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life, and second, Article 1(1) of the Convention requires that the State adopt the necessary measures to guarantee to all persons subject to its jurisdiction the inviolability of the right to life and the right to not be deprived of one’s life arbitrarily.

209.          Article I of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establish: “Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.”  In Peru, the 1979 Constitution guaranteed the right to life, and the 1993 Constitution also enshrined it.  Article 2 of the 1993 Constitution reads: “Every person has the right: (1) To life, identity, moral, mental, and physical integrity, and to free development and well-being. Every person is a subject of law in all respects that favor him or her from the moment of conception.”

210.          Furthermore, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions establishes minimal standards, as customary international law, which apply automatically to all groups involved in an internal armed conflict.  Common Article 3, section 1, reads:  

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above‑mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person. in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ...

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

211.          So, both the State and the parties in conflict automatically assume the legal obligations set forth in common Article 3, which guarantees respect and humane treatment for persons who do not participate or who no longer participate in the hostilities.

212.          Notwithstanding this legal framework, in the 25 cases that are the subject of this report, the Commission finds that the Peruvian State, through its agents and persons linked to it, acted in breach of the right to life in two ways: through summary executions and through the forced disappearance of persons.

213.          In case 11.064, with respect to the victim Flaviano Sáens Chuquivilca, detained and disappeared on June 6, 1992, there are sufficient grounds to conclude that he was detained illegally and arbitrarily by members of the Army, for even though the authorities certified his release, his sister’s assertion about his disappearance, and the statement by Percy Jaramillo Sáenz, the victim’s cousin who saw him alive at the same military unit where they were detained, allow one to infer presumptively his death, [49] as eight years have elapsed since his detention and subsequent disappearance.  Similarly, bearing in mind that more than seven years have elapsed since the detentions of Camilo Núñez Quispe (11.200), Miguel Angel Cieza Galván and Augusto Galindo Peña (11.064) and that between 8 and 16 years have passed since the detention and disappearance  of the Peruvian nationals Concepción Ccacya Barrientos (case 10.523), Ivan Roberto Tineo Rodríguez, and Elías Bohórquez Tineo (Case 10.431), Luis Alberto Sangama Panaifo and Lucio Escobal Fretel (Case 10.564), 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 Volchez Simeón, José Fierro Miche, and Elías Uchupe Huamán (Case 11.126), Edith Galván Montero (Case 11.132),  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 (Case 11.040),  Esteban Romero León, Moisés Poma Ordónez and Yolanda Lauri Arias (Case 11.179), the Commission presumptively infers the death of these 36 victims.

214.          The facts alleged also demonstrate that the State failed to protect 84 victims from the summary executions performed by its agents, some on the spot, without any prior arrest, as in the case of  Luis Miguel Pasache Vidal (Case 10.247), Walter Wilfredo Valer Munaylla (Case 10.472), Maximiliana Sotaya, Donato Morán, Emiliana Puga, and Fortunato Venegas (Case 10.523), 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), 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), Héctor Riveros Izarra, Edgar Chaguayo Quispe, Miriam Lidia Navarro Concha, Socimo Curasma Sulla, Justiniano Fredy Vicente Rivera, 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), 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), and others hours or days after their arrest, as in the case of Víctor Tineo Sandoval, Guillermina Quispe de Tineo, and Eulogio Demetrio Bohorquez Tineo (Case 10.431), Juan Hualla Choquehuanca, Francisco Atamari Mamani, Feliciano Turpo Valeriano, and Roberto Quispe Mamani (Case 10.913), 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), Jessica Rosa Chávez Ruiz, Pedro Javier Cruz Guzmán, and Héctor Rodríguez Rodríguez (Case 11.292), Camilo Nuñez Quispe and Teófilo Nuñez Quispe (Case 11.200), and Moisés Carvajal Quispe (Case 11.680).

215.          The Commission concludes, based on the facts alleged and established in these cases, that agents of the Peruvian State deprived the above-named persons of their lives, and that the State did not protect these victims from the arbitrary executions or forced disappearances carried out by its agents.  First, it did not adopt the measures required to prevent that practice.  Second, it did not adopt the measures needed to put an end to the practice once it had begun and thereby control the actions of its agents. And finally, it did not punish the perpetrators of these violations. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the State violated, to the detriment of the victims in the cases that are the subject of this report, the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention.

The right to personal liberty

216.          Pursuant to Article 7(1) of the American Convention, all persons have the right to personal liberty and security. Article 7(2) of the American Convention provides: “No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. And Article 7(3) adds: “No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.”  Accordingly, for a deprivation of liberty to be lawful, it must be ordered and carried out by a competent authority, for acts previously established in the law, and in keeping with the procedural provisions of domestic law and the American Convention.

217.          A detention is arbitrary and illegal when it occurs outside of the grounds and formalities established by law, when it is carried out without observing the standards required by law, and when there has been an abuse of the powers of arrest, i.e. when it is done for purposes other than those provided for and required by law.  The Commission has also noted that a detention for improper purposes is itself a punishment that constitutes a sort of sentence without trial, or an unlawful penalty that violates the guarantee against imposition of punishment without trial.

218.          It is necessary to take into account the context in Peru, which generally affected most of the departments in which the detentions and disappearances took place. The continuous incursions of armed groups had provoked a state of permanent anxiety in the population.  For this reason, several departments were declared to be under a state of emergency, which prima facie found justification in the crisis faced by the Peruvian State as it sought to combat terrorism.  Under that state of emergency, Article 2(20)(g) [50] of the Peruvian Constitution of 1979 had been suspended in many departments, so that the military forces were legally authorized to detain a person without a warrant from a competent judge and without the need for flagrancy. Under Article 27(3) of the American Convention, a state party to the Convention must report to the other states party, through the Secretary General of the OAS, that it has suspended rights enshrined in that Convention, in order for the suspension of rights to be lawful under the Convention.

219.          Despite the prima facie legitimacy of this measure, the authority to detain is not an unlimited power for the security forces, by which they can proceed to detain citizens arbitrarily.  The suspension of the judicial warrant for detaining a person does not mean that the public authorities can ignore the legal conditions necessary for the lawful decree of that measure, nor that judicial checks on how arrests are carried out are voided.

220.          The suspension of the guarantee of personal liberty, authorized by Article 27 of the American Convention on Human Rights, can never be total.  There are principles underlying any democratic society that the security forces must observe when making a formal detention, even under a state of emergency.  The legal requirements for a detention are duties that the state authorities must respect, pursuant to the State’s international commitment to protect and respect human rights, acquired under the Convention.

221.          Second, based on the foregoing principles, a police or military detention, as a precautionary measure, must have as its sole purpose preventing the flight of a person suspected of a criminal act, and thereby to assure his or her appearance before a competent judge, to be judged within a reasonable time or, as the case may be, released.  No state may impose penalties without the guarantee of a trial preceding the penalty. [51] In a constitutional and democratic state under the rule of law, in which the separation of powers is respected, any penalty provided for by law must be imposed judicially and after having established the guilt of a person in a fair trial, with full guarantees.  The existence of an emergency situation does not authorize the state to ignore the presumption of innocence, nor does it concern on the security forces the exercise of an arbitrary and unlimited ius puniendi.

222.          In this regard, Article 7(5) of the American Convention prescribes: “Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings.”  Article 7(6) adds: “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention....”  The Commission has also indicated that any person deprived of his or her liberty must be held in officially recognized places of detention and brought, without delay and in keeping with its domestic law, before the competent judicial authority.  In case the authority breaches this legal obligation, the state has the duty to guarantee the detainee the possibility of filing an effective judicial remedy that allows for judicial control over the legality of the detention.

223.          Applying the foregoing considerations to the cases under study, the Commission observes that in 20 of the 25 cases there is no information to suggest that any of the victims was deprived of his or her liberty pursuant to the measures explained above. To the contrary, the facts described follow the modus operandi of many summary executions from that period, including the fact that in cases 11.035, 11.057, 11.065, 11.200, 10.472, and 11.292, the victims’ bodies showed signs of torture.

224.          In cases 10.431, 10.523, 10.564, 10.744, 10.913, 10.994, 11.035, 11.040, 11.057, 11.064, 11.065, 11.179, 11.200, 11.680, 10.247, 10.472, 10.805, 11.126, 11.132, and 11.292, it is alleged that the victims were detained illegally and arbitarily prior to being executed or disappeared.  And, in cases 10.247, 10.431, 10.472, 10.523, 10.564, 10.805, 10.994, 11.035, 11.051, 11.057, 11.064, 10.744, 11.040, 11.126, 11.132, 11.179 and 11.200, it was also reported that the military or police authorities have systematically denied having detained the victims.

225.          Yet in addition, kidnapping violates the right to liberty, because the kidnapping of a human being is actually a form of illegal deprivation of liberty that also violates Article 7(5) of the American Convention, on the right of a detainee to be brought before a judge without delay, and Article 7(6), on the right to adequate remedies to review the legality of his or her arrest.  As a corollary, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the acts of its agents upon illegally depriving of liberty, in violation of Article 7 of the American Convention, Teodoro Lorenzo Alvarado Castillo (Case10.994), Raúl Antero Cajacuri Roca (Case 11.035), Rafael Ventocilla Rojas, Marino Ventocilla Rojas, Alejandro Ventocilla Castillo, Simón Ventocilla Castillo, Paulino Ventocilla Castillo, Rubén Ventocilla León (Case 11.057), Flaviano Sáens Chuquivilca, Edgar Chaguayo Quispe, Miriam Lidia Navarro Concha, Miguel Angel Cieza Galván, Socimo Curasma Sulla, Justiniano Fredy Vicente Rivera, Augusto Galindo Peña, 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), Ricardo Salazar Ruiz (Case 11.065), Camilo Núñez Quispe, Teófilo Nuñez Quispe (Case 11.200), Moisés Carvajal Quispe (Case 11.680), Luis Miguel Pasache Vidal (Case 10.247), Walter Wilfredo Valer Munaylla (Case 10.472), Nilton Adelmo Loli Mauricio, Saturnino Serrate García, Esaú Daniel Moreno Cotrina (Case 10.805), Jessica Rosa Chávez Ruiz, Pedro Javier Cruz Guzmán, Héctor Rodríguez Rodríguez (Case 11.292), Concepción Ccacya Barrientos (Case 10.523), Ivan Roberto Tineo Rodríguez, Elías Bohórquez Tineo (Case 10.431), Luis Alberto Sangama Panaifo, Lucio Escobal Fretel (Case 10.564), 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 Vílchez Simeón, José Fierro Miche, Elías Uchupe Huamán (Case 11.126), Edith Galván Montero (Case 11.132), 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, César Sánchez Castro (Case 11.040), Esteban Romero León, Moisés Poma Ordóñez, and Yolanda  Lauri Arias (Case 11.179), Víctor Tineo Sandoval, Guillermina Quispe and Eulogio Demetrio Bohórquez Tineo (Case 10.431), the victims in these 20 cases, and impeding their access to judicial protection through habeas corpus.

The right to humane treatment

226.          Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, at paragraphs 1 and 2, indicates that “every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected” and that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment....”

227.          The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has established that the forced or voluntary disappearance of a person is a particularly odious violation of human rights, and has added:

A disappearance is a doubly paralyzing form of suffering: for the victims, frequently tortured and in constant fear for their lives, and for their family members, ignorant of the fate of their loved ones, their emotions alternating between hope and despair, wondering and waiting, sometimes for years, for news that may never come. The victims are well aware that their families don't know what has become of them and that the chances are slim that anyone will come to their aid. Having been removed from the protective precinct of the law and "disappeared" from society, they are in fact deprived of all their rights and are at the mercy of their captors. If death is not the final outcome and they are eventually released from the nightmare, the victims may suffer a long time from the physical and psychological consequences of this form of dehumanization and from the brutality and torture which often accompany it. [52]

228.          In the six cases identified by numbers 11.035, 11.057, 11.065, 11.200, 10.472, and 11.292, the State never challenged the petitioners’ descriptions of the marks on the corpses, nor the allegations of torture.  Nor did it present any information or evidence to refute it, or demonstrate that those allegations were effectively investigated, as required by its obligations under the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. [53] And it impeded the persons detained and disappeared Iván Roberto Tineo Rodríguez, Elías Bohórquez Tineo (Case 10.431), Concepción Ccacya Barrientos (Case 10.523), Luis Alberto Sangama Panaifo, Lucio Escobal Fretel (Case 10.564), Arturo Torres Quispe (Case 10.744), Flaviano Sáens Chuquivilca, Miguel Angel Cieza Galván, and Augusto Galindo Peña (Case 11.064), 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 Volchez Simeón, José Fierro Miche, Elías Uchupe Huamán (Case 11.126), Camilo Nuñez Quispe (Case 11.200), Edith Galván Montero (Case 11.132), 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, César Sánchez Castro (Case 11.040), Esteban Romero León, Moisés Poma Ordóñez and Yolanda  Lauri Arias (Case 11.179) from having any contact with any form of help or protection.  That prolonged and clandestine isolation is considered by the international human rights case-law as cruel and inhuman forms of treatment, harmful of the mental and moral integrity of the person. [54]

229.          Along these lines, the Commission concludes that the Peruvian State has violated Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of Raúl Antero Cajacuri Roca, Rafael Ventocilla Rojas, Marino Ventocilla Rojas, Alejandro Ventocilla Castillo, Simón Ventocilla Castillo, Paulino Ventocilla Castillo, Rubén Ventocilla León, Ricardo Salazar Ruiz, Camilo Núñez Quispe, Teófilo Nuñez Quispe, Walter Wilfredo Valer Munaylla, Jessica Rosa Chávez Ruiz, Pedro Javier Cruz Guzmán, Héctor Rodríguez Rodríguez, Flaviano Sáens Chuquivilca, Miguel Angel Cieza Galván, Augusto Galindo Peña, Concepción Ccacya Barrientos, Ivan Roberto Tineo Rodríguez, Elías Bohorquez Tineo, Luis Alberto Sangama Panaifo, Lucio Escobal Fretel, 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 Volchez Simeón, José Fierro Miche, Elías Uchupe Huamán, Edith Galván Montero, Arturo Torres Quispe, 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, César Sánchez Castro, Esteban Romero León, Moisés Poma Ordóñez, and Yolanda Lauri Arias.

Right to juridical personality

230.          Article 3 of the American Convention on Human Rights indicates that every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law. When Flaviano Sáens Chuquivilca, Camilo Nuñez Quispe, Miguel Angel Cieza Galván, Augusto Galindo Peña, Concepción Ccacya Barrientos, Ivan Roberto Tineo Rodríguez, Elías Bohorquez Tineo, Luis Alberto Sangama Panaifo, Lucio Escobal Fretel, 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 Volchez Simeón, José Fierro Miche, Elías Uchupe Huamán, Edith Galván Montero, Arturo Torres Quispe, 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, César Sánchez Castro, Esteban Romero León, Moisés Poma Ordónez, and Yolanda  Lauri Arias were detained by state agents or persons linked to the State, and then disappeared, they were also shut out of the legal and institutional order of the Peruvian State.  In this sense, the forced disappearance of persons represents the denial of their very existence as a human being with juridical personality. [55]

231.          Therefore, the Commission finds that Peru violated the right to recognition as a person before the law, enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention, to the detriment of these victims.

Rights of the child

232.          Article 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes: “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.”

233.          Of the 25 cases under study, four refer to violations against minors.  In Case 10.744, reference is made to the detention and disappearance of Arturo Torres Quispe, 16 years of age, at the hands of ronderos from the civil defense patrols of Duraznopata.  Case 10.947 alleges the summary execution of the five-year-old son of Cirila de Chaico and of her sister’s two-year-old son, at the hands of members of the Army who went to the hamlet of U.T.C. where, using cutting instruments and firearms, they murdered 12 people. Case 11.040 describes the detention and disappearance by members of the peasant civil defense patrols and Peruvian Army personnel of youths Percy Borja Gaspar, 14 years of age, Angel Zanabria Ubaldo, 16 years of age, and Gumercindo Ubaldo Zanabria, 16 years of age.  Case 11.292 refers to the detention, torture, and summary execution, at the hands of Peruvian police personnel, of Jessica Rosa Chávez Ruiz, 17 years of age (and two youths who were with her); the members of the police argued that she died in combat.

234.          The American Convention, at Article 19, imposes on the states, society, and the family the duty to offer the measures of protection required due to their condition as minors.  The foregoing cases illustrate how the Peruvian State failed to provide the guarantees established in the American Convention, allowing several children to be tortured and summarily executed.

The right to judicial protection and to a fair trial

235.          According to the allegations and information provided by the parties, it is proven that the Peruvian State has failed in its duty to investigate, identify, and punish the persons responsible for the facts and to make reparation to the victims.

236.          In most of the cases, the judicial police and the judicial authorities did not identify who perpetrated the crimes. [56] In the few cases in which they were identified, they were not brought to trial, [57] and in one other there was no investigation, [58] which explains why the State, to this day, has not reported on any criminal investigation.

237.          The petitioners in all the cases stated that they had reported the violation of human rights to the local authorities, but in only four of them were the persons allegedly responsible identified, even though later, due to legal circumstances, they did not issue guilty verdicts, and in all the other cases the proceedings were archived.

238.          Article 25(1) of the American Convention provides: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention....”  Article 25(1) incorporates the principle of the effectiveness of procedural instruments or means.  It is not sufficient for the domestic legal order to acknowledge formally the remedy in question; it must develop the possibilities of an effective remedy, and that it be substantiated in keeping with the rules of due process.

239.          Article 8(1) provides:

Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.

240.          For its part, the Court has explained the close relationship among Articles 25, 8, and 1(1):

Article 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention obliges the State to guarantee to every individual access to the administration of justice and, in particular, to simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered.... Article 25 "is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society.... That article is closely linked to Article 8(1), which provides that every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees ... for the determination of his rights, whatever their nature. [59]

241.          The Court, in relation to the duty assumed by the state, has said that when a protected right or liberty has been violated, “[t]he State has a legal duty ... to take reasonable steps ... to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation.”  Therefore, the Court emphasizes that the investigation “must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family ...  without an effective search for the truth by the government.” [60]

242.          In other cases, the Commission has said that the “Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions,” adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council by Resolution 1989/65, explain what is required in cases of suspicious deaths. [61]   In this respect, the investigation should have as its purpose to determine the cause, manner, and time of death, the person responsible, and any pattern or practice that might have brought about the death.  In addition, it is to include an adequate autopsy, collection and analysis of all physical and documentary evidence, and statements from witnesses.  The investigation should distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide, and homicide.

243.          Due to the lack of an effective investigation and the resultant absence of the foundation needed to try these cases, in addition to other shortcomings in the administration of these proceedings, such as delay, the Commission concludes that the victim’s families did not enjoy the necessary due process guarantees in the determination of their rights.  According to the interrelated guarantees established in Articles 25, 8, and 1(1) of the American Convention, the state has the duty to combat impunity “by all available lawful means since impunity fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their relatives.” [62] Accordingly, the State is responsible for the fact that these violations remained covered by a veil of impunity, and it is responsible for violating, in the persons of the victims, the rights and guarantees established at Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention.

Duty of the State to respect and guarantee individual rights

244.          In the cases that are the subject of the report, the Peruvian State has not met its duty under Article 1(1) of the American Convention to “respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights,” as it violated the human rights set forth at Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, and 25.

245.          The first obligation of states arising from Article 1(1) of the Convention is to respect the rights and freedoms of all individuals in their jurisdiction.  With respect to this obligation, the Court has stated that “under international law a State is responsible for the acts of its agents ... and for their omissions, even when those agents act outside the sphere of their authority or violate international law.” [63] In addition, it establishes that “any violation of rights recognized by the Convention carried out by an act of public authority or by persons who use their position of authority is imputable to the State.”

246.          The second obligation provided for in Article 1(1) is to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention. In this respect, the states parties have the duty “to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights.  As a consequence ... the States must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention....” [64]

247.          The State, in the face of alleged cases of extrajudicial execution and forced disappearance of persons, has the duty to clarify the facts, and to identify and punish the persons responsible.  In the cases analyzed in this report, these essential obligations have not been met, especially when it has been shown that the State itself used its structure to implement a practice of extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances of persons during the aforementioned period.  Therefore, the Commission concludes that the State has violated Article 1(1) of the Convention because it did not guarantee the exercise of the rights and guarantees of the victims identified in the cases included in this report.

VII.          PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT N° 82/00

248.          The Commission approved Report Nº 82/00 (Article 50) on the present case on October 5, 2000, during its 108th session.  That Report, with the Commission’s recommendation, was transmitted to the Peruvian State on October 18, 2000; it was given two months to comply with the recommendations, counted from the date the Report was sent.  On January 25, 2001, the State sent a communication to the IACHR, and indicated that the current Government is taking a series of measures to build a nation in which human rights are respected, to which end it is adopting the necessary measures to address all the human rights violations that have not received full and proper attention, including, among others, cases involving assassination, torture, forced disappearance, internal displacement, and the use of terrorist methods.  In addition, the State added as follows:

(B) The Executive branch is planning to create a mechanism aimed at fostering implementation of the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which will materialize in coming days.

(C) In addition, the State has already adopted some measures such as Supreme Resolution Nº 281-2000-Jus, of December 4, 2000, creating the Commission for the Study and Review of Legislation Adopted since April 5, 1992.  It is made up of the Minister of Justice, who shall preside over it, one representative from the Ministry of Education, a representative from the Ministry of the Presidency, one representative from the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, and two jurists of renowned moral character and academic standing. Its main function is to prepare a report with proposals for the legal reforms necessary to bring the legislation into line with the Constitution and the international human rights instruments.

(D) Through Supreme Resolution Nº 304-2000-Jus, of December 9, 2000, the Peruvian State established an Inter-Institutional Working Group entrusted with preparing legislative and administrative proposals necessary for establishing a Truth Commission, made up of the Minister of Justice or his or her representative, who shall preside over it, the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Minister of Defense and his or her representative, the Minister of Interior and his or her representative, the Minister for Women’s Promotion and Human Development or her representative, the Peruvian Bishops Conference, and the National Protestant Council of Peru.  Its main functions are to present a Report and Recommendations for establishing the Truth Commission, to develop a comprehensive proposal to attend to human rights violations.  In addition, this Truth Commission will establish formulas that make it possible to clarify the facts, design mechanisms of justice, establish a reparations policy, and suggest the framework for ensuring that the events that took place in Peru never recur.

(E) The Ministry of Justice has sent the Office of the Attorney General a copy of Confidential Report Nº 82/00, asking that it issue a report on the investigations and the current state of all the complaints contained in it.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the foregoing, one can conclude that the Peruvian State is taking note of the recommendations in Report Nº 82/00.  The Commission mentioned in item 2(D) shall propose the derogation or modification of the laws that are contrary to the Constitution and the international human rights instruments, among them, Laws Nº 26,479 and Nº 26,492. The Truth Commission shall have as its main objective the establishment of formulas for the timely clarification of the facts violative of human rights, and to suggest the reparations policy.

249.          By communication delivered personally to the IACHR by Peruvian Minister of Justice Diego García-Sayán, before the plenary of the IACHR held February 22, 2001, during the Commission’s 110th regular session, it was noted that “in the face of the essence of the recommendations on that group of cases ... (1) the Peruvian State acknowledges its responsibility for the human rights violations that have been found by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in its final reports. (2) This acknowledgment of responsibility implies that the Peruvian State shall adopt the legal and administrative measures needed to prevent the commission of new acts such as those that have occurred, and to make all efforts necessary to determine the persons responsible. (3) Mindful of the complexity of the context in which these violations occurred, the government has constituted a working group, made up of several sectors of the Executive, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, the churches, and human rights organizations, that has been entrusted with preparing the draft legislation and other proposals deemed necessary for the establishment of a Truth Commission.  This Commission will have the function of developing a comprehensive proposal for addressing the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, arriving at formulas for determining the facts, designing mechanisms of justice, and establishing a policy of reparations for the victims.  (4) Under the constitutional provisions in force, Laws 26,479 and 26,492 cannot impede judges from performing their functions in relation to the criminal complaints that may be filed.  (5) The Government shall design a policy of comprehensive attention to reparations that will be aimed at ensuring that victims of human rights violations have the opportunity to access social and educational programs free of charge....  These arguments are also applicable to the cases in which the Commission has issued a confidential report under Article 50 of the Convention.”

250.          On that occasion, the IACHR issued a joint press communiqué with the Permanent Mission of Peru to the OAS stating as follows:

The Inter-American Commission reiterated its recognition of the auspicious actions the transition Government led by the distinguished president of Peru, Mr. Valentín Paniagua, is taking; of the renowned members of his cabinet; of the Honorable Congress of the Republic of Peru, related to redefining and strengthening the fundamental institutions of the state.  The IACHR added that this initiative is included in that set of highly positive actions that the present Government of Peru has taken, and complements other equally important measures, such as normalization of the Peruvian situation with respect to the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the recent signing by Peru of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and compliance with the recommendations and precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American Commission.

The IACHR highly valued and received in a positive vein the initiative by the Government of Peru, whose purpose is to offer settlements in a large number of cases, including the following....

(d) Cases with recommendations by the Commission in reports adopted pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention:  This section contains 26 cases that were recently issued and

have yet to be published.  With respect to these cases, the State has also undertaken to seek comprehensive solutions to the human rights violations found by the IACHR in those reports. [65]   

251.          In keeping with the provisions of Article 51(1) of the Convention, at this stage of the procedure the Commission must determine whether the State resolved the matter. In this respect, and even though the recommendations of the IACHR have not been implemented to date, the Commission takes positive note of the various actions that the Peruvian State has initiated, through its new Government, towards complying with the recommendations made by the Peruvian State in this report.  The Inter-American Commission expects that the Peruvian State will soon report that it has complied with the recommendations made in Report Nº 82/00, and ratified in this report.

VIII.          CONCLUSIONS

252.          Based on the foregoing analysis, the Commission ratifies its conclusion that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of the right to life, the right to a fair trial, and the right to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of:

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 Volchez 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 addition, the State is responsible for violating the right to personal liberty established at Article 7 of the American Convention to the detriment of:

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), 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),  Ricardo Salazar Ruiz (Case 11.065), Camilo Nuñez Quispe, Teófilo Nuñez Quispe (Case 11.200), Moisés Carvajal Quispe (Case 11.680), 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), Jessica Rosa Chávez Ruiz, Pedro Javier Cruz Guzmán, and Héctor Rodríguez Rodríguez (Case 11.292), Concepción Ccacya Barrientos, (Case 10.523), Ivan Roberto Tineo Rodríguez, Elías Bohorquez Tineo (Case 10.431),  Luis Alberto Sangama Panaifo Lucio Escobal Fretel (Case 10.564), 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 Volchez Simeón, José Fierro Miche, and Elías Uchupe Huamán (Case 11.126), Edith Galván Montero (Case 11.132), 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), Esteban Romero León, Moisés Poma Ordónez and Yolanda Lauri Arias (Case 11.179), Víctor Tineo Sandoval, Guillermina Quispe de Tineo, Eulogio Demetrio Bohorquez Tineo (Case 10.431).

In addition, the State is responsible for violating the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention, and its duty to prevent and punish torture established in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of:

Raúl Antero Cajacuri Roca (Case 11.035), Rafael Ventocilla Rojas, Marino Ventocilla Rojas, Alejandro Ventocilla Castillo, Simón Ventocilla Castillo, Paulino Ventocilla Castillo, Rubén Ventocilla León (Case 11.057), Ricardo Salazar Ruiz (Case 11.065), Camilo Núñez Quispe (Case 11.200), Walter Wilfredo Valer Munaylla (Case 10.472), Jessica Rosa Chávez Ruiz, Pedro Javier Cruz Guzmán, Héctor Rodríguez Rodríguez (Case 11.292), Flaviano Sáens Chuquivilca, Miguel Angel Cieza Galván and Augusto Galindo Peña (Case 11.064) Concepción Ccacya Barrientos (Case 10.523), Ivan Roberto Tineo Rodríguez, Elías Bohorquez Tineo (Case 10.431), Luis Alberto Sangama Panaifo, Lucio Escobal Fretel (Case 10.564), 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 Volchez Simeón, José Fierro Miche, Elías Uchupe Huamán (Case 11.126), Edith Galván Montero (Case 11.132), 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, César Sánchez Castro (Case 11.040), Esteban Romero León, Moisés Poma Ordóñez and Yolanda Lauri Arias (Case 11.179), Víctor Tineo Sandoval, Guillermina Quispe, and Eulogio Demetrio Bohorquez Tineo (Case 10.431).

The State is also for violating the right to recognition as a person before the law, enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention, to the detriment of:

Flaviano Sáens Chuquivilca, Miguel Angel Cieza Galván, and Augusto Galindo Peña (Case 11.064), Camilo Nuñez Quispe (Case 11.200) Concepción Ccacya Barrientos (case 10.523), Ivan Roberto Tineo Rodríguez, Elías Bohorquez Tineo (Case 10.431), Luis Alberto Sangama Panaifo, Lucio Escobal Fretel (Case 10.564), 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 Volchez Simeón, José Fierro Miche, Elías Uchupe Huamán (Case 11.126), Edith Galván Montero (Case 11.132), 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, César Sánchez Castro (Case 11.040), Esteban Romero León, Moisés Poma Ordóñez and Yolanda Lauri Arias (Case 11.179).

In addition, the State is responsible for the violation of the rights of the child established in Article 19 of the American Convention to the detriment of:

Arturo Torres Quispe, 16 years of age (Case 10.744), the five-year-old son of Cirila de Chaico and her sister’s two-year-old son (Case 10.947), youths Percy Borja Gaspar, 14 years of age, Angel Zanabria Ubaldo, 16 years ofCase  age, and Gumercindo Ubaldo Zanabria, 16 years of age (Case 11.040), and Jessica Rosa Chávez Ruiz, 17 years of age (Case 11.292).

Accordingly, the State is responsible for breaching its duty imposed by Article 1(1) to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention with respect to the above-named victims.

IX.          RECOMMENDATIONS

253.          Based on the analysis and conclusions of this report, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reiterates the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

1.          Void any judicial decision, internal measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the summary executions and forced disappearance of the victims indicated at paragraph 252.  In this regard, the State should also repeal Laws Nº 26,479 and 26,492.

2.          Carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances of the victims and to punish the persons responsible pursuant to Peruvian legislation.

3.          Adopt the measures necessary for the victim’s families to receive adequate and timely compensation for the violations established herein.

4.                 Accede to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.

X.          PUBLICATION

254.          On March 9, 2001, the Commission transmitted Report Nº 24/01 (the text of which appears above) to the Peruvian State and to the petitioners, pursuant to Article 51(2) of the Convention, and gave the State an additional period of time to comply with the previous recommendations.

255.          In a communication of April 18, 2001, supplemented by a communication dated May 25, 2001, the Peruvian State put forward the following considerations, among others:

(…) The cases referred to (No. 10,247 and others) on extrajudicial executions and forced disappearance of persons are to be reviewed by a Truth Commission, as proposed to the President of the Republic by the Interinstitutional Working Group created by Supreme Resolution No. 281-2000-JUS.  This Truth Commission reflects the need to know what really happened in our country, and to be able to understand the causes and factors that produced such a situation of human rights violations, and in this way to begin the conscious and deliberate process of re-institutionalizing democracy in Peru, and bringing about national reconciliation.

(…)

The deeds to be considered by the Truth Commission are limited to those that took place essentially between May 1980 and December 31, 2000, involving human rights violations in Peru (including a series of case is covered by Report No. 24/01 on extrajudicial executions and forced disappearance of persons) as well as acts attributable to terrorist groups, and those deriving from State actions.

The Truth Commission will prepare proposals for full reparations and the restoration of dignity to the victims of severe violations of human rights, and their relatives.  This is consistent with the third recommendation of the I-ACHR, which calls for reparations to relatives of the victims.  The idea is to deal in a comprehensive matter with this dimension of the human rights violations referred to.

(…)

In this respect, the Peruvian State considers that an initial step in addressing the second recommendation contained in Report Nº 24/01 should be to transfer the cases covered by that Report to the Truth Commission.

As well, the Public Defender has launched an investigation into the forced disappearance of persons in Peru, covering the period 1980-1996, i.e. the lapse of time in which the events covered by Report Nº 24/01 took place.  (…) This investigation is a further sign of the Peruvian State's efforts to fulfill the recommendations of the Commission.

(…)

With respect to the fourth recommendation of the IACHR, Peru signed the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons on January 8, 2001, and it is now pending ratification by the Peruvian Congress.

(…)

Finally, the Executive Branch has transmitted Report Nº 24/01 to the Ministries of Defense and the Interior, as well as the Judicial Branch and the Attorney General's Office, so that they may take steps consistent with their constitutional and legal responsibilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Without prejudice to the steps they may be taken in the coming weeks, the Peruvian State submits this information, and reiterates to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights its firm commitment to consider the recommendations contained in Report Nº 24/01.  In particular, the Peruvian State intends to comply with recommendations 2, 3 and 4 of that Report.

256.          The Inter-American Commission appreciates the declarations of the Peruvian State as to the actions undertaken to comply with the Commission's recommendations.  Pursuant to Article 51 (3) of the American Convention and 45 (3) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission decides to reiterate the conclusions and recommendations contained in chapters VIII and IX supra; to publish this Report and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.  Consistent with its mandate and the provisions of Article 46 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission will continue to evaluate the measures taken by the Peruvian State with respect to the recommendations formulated, until these have been fulfilled.  In this respect, the Inter-American Commission requests the State to provide quarterly reports on progress in fulfilling the recommendations.

Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in the city of Washington, D.C., October 11, 2001. Signed by Hélio Bicudo, President; Claudio Grossman, First Vice President; Juan Méndez, Second Vice President; Commissioners: Marta Altolaguirre, Robert K. Goldman, Peter Laurie, and Julio Prado Vallejo.

[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]