ANNUAL REPORT OF THE IACHR 2006

CASE 11.381, Report N° 100/01, Milton García Fajardo (Nicaragua)

347.          On October 11, 2001, the IACHR approved Report Nº 100/01 on the above-mentioned case, and made the following recommendations:

1.         To conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to establish the criminal responsibility of the persons who inflicted the injuries caused to the detriment of Milton García Fajardo, Cristóbal Ruiz Lazo, Ramón Roa Parajón, Leonel Arguello Luna, César Chavarría Vargas, Francisco Obregón García, Aníbal Reyes Pérez, Mario Sánchez Paz, Frank Cortés, Arnoldo José Cardoza, Leonardo Solis, René Varela and Orlando Vilchez Florez, and to punish those responsible in accordance with Nicaraguan law.

2.         To adopt the measures necessary to enable the 142 customs workers who lodged this petition to receive adequate and timely compensation for the violations of their human rights established herein.

348.          On November 27, 2006, the Commission requested the State and the petitioners, to submit information on the status of compliance with the recommendations.  By letter dated December 20, 2006, the petitioners responded that the State has failed to comply with any of the agreements it assumed during the diverse working group meetings.

349.          Based on the information presented by the petitioners, the Commission considers that compliance with the recommendations is still pending.

CASE 11.506, Report Nº 77/02, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor Dos Santos (Paraguay)

350.          On December 27, 2002, the Inter-American Commission approved Report Nº 77/02 concerning this case.  There it made the following recommendations:

1.         Make full reparation to Mr. Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro, which includes appropriate compensation.

2.         Make full reparation to Mr. José Víctor Dos Santos, which includes appropriate compensation.

3.         Such reparation should be commensurate with the harm done, which implies that compensation should be greater for Mr. José Víctor Dos Santos, given that he spent eight years in prison, with no legal justification for his detention.

4.         Order an investigation to determine who was responsible for the violations ascertained by the Commission and punish them.

5.         Take the necessary steps to prevent such violations from recurring.

351.          The parties have not presented any information concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations.  Therefore, in keeping with the assessments contained in the Annual Reports for 2003 and 2004, the Commission concludes that the recommendations have not been carried out.

CASE 11.800, Report Nº 110/00, César Cabrejos Bernuy (Peru)

352.          In its report Nº 110/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the State of Peru:

1.         To offer adequate compensation to Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy, pursuant to Article 63 of the American Convention, including the moral aspect as well as the material one, for the violation of his human rights, and in particular, 

2.         To carry out the Judicial Order issued by the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 5, 1992, reinstating Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy in his position as Colonel in the National Police, paying him his salary and other remuneration owing to him but not paid since the date of his enforced retirement, and granting him all other benefits to which he is entitled as a Colonel of the Police, including, as appropriate, those relating to his pension; or, as a second resort, to pay him the salary and other remuneration to which he would be entitled as a Colonel of the National Police, until he is of legal retirement age, paying also in this case his retroactive salary from the date of his forced retirement, and granting him all the other economic benefits to which, as a Colonel of the National Police, he is entitled, including, as appropriate, those relating to his pension. 

3.         To conduct a full, impartial, and effective investigation of the facts, in order to establish responsibilities for the failure to carry out the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 5, 1992, and to pursue such criminal, administrative, and other procedures as necessary to apply the appropriate punishment to those responsible, as befits the gravity of the violations in question.

353.          Regarding observance of the recommendations, it is important to recall that, in its communication of December 3, 2003, the State of Peru reported that Supreme Resolutions No. 0716-2001-IN/PNP of July 10, 2001 and No. 1158-2001IN/PNP of November 13, 2001 ordered that Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy be rehired and credited for past service calculated as of his transfer to retirement, that is, from March 26, 1997 to July 10, 2001.

354.          As for the observance of the remaining recommendations, the Peruvian Government refrained from providing up-to-date information.

355.          Furthermore, the petitioners did not submit information on observance of the pending recommendations.

356.          Because of the above, the IACHR deems that the recommendations appearing in the report have been partially observed.

CASE 11.031, Report Nº 111/00, Pedro Pablo López González et al. (Peru)

357.          In Report Nº 111/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the State of Peru:

1.         That it carry out an exhaustive, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the forced disappearance of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More, and that it punish the persons responsible, in keeping with Peruvian legislation.

2.         That it void any domestic measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the detention and forced disappearance of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More.  Accordingly, the State should nullify Laws 26.479 and 26.492.

3.         That it adopt the measures required for the family members of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established.

358.          Regarding the first recommendation regarding the State’s duty to investigate the incidents of interest in the present case, by means of the communication of December 5, 2005, the State reported that, on May 11, 2005, the Presiding Senior District Attorney of the First Specialized Superior District Attorney’s Office of the Ministry of Justice filed substantive charges against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Nicolás Hermosa Ríos, Juan Nolberto Rivero Lazo, Julio Rolando Salazar Monroe, Alberto Segundo Pinto Cárdenas, Víctor Silva Mendoza or Víctor Raúl Silva Mendoza and Federico Augusto Navarro Pérez, as the indirect perpetrators of the crimes of aggravated kidnapping and homicide to the detriment of Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Carlos Martín Tarazona More, Jorge Luis Tarazona More, Roberto Barrientos Velásquez, Carlos Barrientos Velásquez, Dennis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Federico Coquis Vásquez, and Pedro Pablo López González. Likewise, substantive charges were filed against Santiago Enrique Martín Rivas, Carlos Eliseo Pichilingue Guevara, Julio Chuqui Aguirre, Jesús Antonio Sosa Saavedra, Pedro Guillermo Suppo, Jorge Enrique Ortiz Mantas, Carlos Luis Caballero Zegarra Ballón, Ángel Arturo Pino Díaz Sánchez, Gabriel Orlando Vera Navarrete, Hugo Coral Goycochea, Nelson Rogelio Carvajal García, José Alarcón Gonzáles, José Alarcón González, Rolando Javier Meneses Montes de Oca, Wilmer Yarleque Ordinola, Ángel Sauni Pomaya, Hércules Gómez Casanova, and Estela Cárdenas Díaz, as the perpetrators of the crimes of aggravated kidnapping and homicide to the detriment of the previously listed victims.

359.          Likewise, the State indicated that, by means of Resolution No. 70 of July 13, 2005, the First Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima stated that there were grounds for bringing the case before a hearing of evidence and testimony against the accused and set a date to start up the Public Hearing on August 17, 2005.  The petitioners, in their communication of November 27, 2006, also referred to the start of the hearing of evidence and testimony on the indicated date.  Likewise, the petitioners indicated that, although on January 10, 2005, the criminal proceedings concerning the case being examined, had been joined with those involving the cases of “Barrios Altos”, Pedro Sauri, and “La Cantuta”, in March 2006 it had been separated from the others and since then it is being heard individually. 

360.          In the above-mentioned communication of November 27, 2006, like the State, the petitioners informed about the premature judgment issued in the case against Julio Chuqui Aguirre by the Special Criminal Chamber “A” of the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima, sentencing him to six years of custodial imprisonment.  As for the petitioners, they pointed out that, in the proceedings for the incidents of the present case, the “honest admission” by seven of the indicted parties had taken place, but that they had not provided precise information about the location of the remains of the victims, thus making it impossible to locate them until now.

361.          Regarding the second recommendation, that is, invalidating all domestic, legislative or other kinds of measures tending to obstruct the investigation, proceedings, and punishment of those responsible for the incidents, the State has specified, in previous communications, that it has been making the necessary efforts to this end.  In particular, it mentioned that, by means of the Attorney General’s Resolution No. 8154-2005-MP-FN of April 18, 2005, published in the Official Register El Peruano on April 20, 2005, it was ordered “that the district attorneys of all the entities that had intervened in the jurisdictional bodies that heard the proceedings in which Laws [of amnesty] No. 26479 y No. 26492 had been applied, request the counterpart Chamber or Trial Court to carry out the supranational judgments,” that is, those issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Barrios Altos.

362.          Finally, regarding the third recommendation, since the compensation for damages to the relatives of the victim is included in the steps taken that led to the signing of the Joint Press Release of February 22, 2001, the petitioners informed that, regarding the compensation for education, health, and housing, although certain steps had been taken by the State, as yet they have not been fully carried out.  Likewise, the petitioners reported in their communication of November 27, 2006 that the State had not accepted to dialogue on the payment of a possible cash compensation for the victims. 

363.          As for the recommendation in the matter of the investigation and justice, the Commission shall continue to follow up on the trial stage and is waiting for the results of the judiciary activities in this case.

364.          As for observance of the last recommendation, the Commission urges the State to duly fulfill the obligations that were incurred, especially with respect to medical care, scholarships, land titling and the building of housing, as well as the individual compensations aimed at providing direct redress for the victims and their relatives.

365.          Owing to the above, the IACHR deems that, until now, there is partial observance by the State of Peru of the recommendations contained in the report.  The measures that were adopted by the State have been and shall continue to be evaluated by the Commission in the general reports of the IACHR, as well as in the performance of the other duties set forth by the conventions and statutes.

CASE 11.099, Report Nº 112/00, Yone Cruz Ocalio (Peru)

366.          In Report Nº 112/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the State of Peru:

1.         That it carry out an exhaustive, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the forced disappearance of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio, and that it punish the persons responsible, in keeping with Peruvian legislation. 

2.         That it void any domestic measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the detention and forced disappearance of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio.  Accordingly, the State should nullify Laws 26.479 and 26.492. 

3.         That it adopt the measures required for the family members of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein.

367.          By means of the communication of February 5, 2007, the State of Peru submitted information on observance of the previous recommendations.  Regarding the first recommendations, the State pointed out that the Mixed Provincial District Attorney’s Office of Leoncio Prado-Huanuco reported, by means of Letter No. 011-2007-MP-FPM-AUCAYACU of January 4, 2007, that the investigation of the alleged perpetration of the crime of forced disappearance to the detriment of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio has been provisionally filed because the alleged perpetrators had not been identified.

368.          The petitioners did not submit any up-to-date information.

369.          Regarding the second recommendation, the State reasserts what had been stated previously, claiming that there is a practice of its institutions, based on the rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos Case, indicating that the amnesties cannot be validly opposed to the investigations undertaken to identify and subsequently punish those responsible for violations of human rights.  The State of Peru deems that the solution to the procedural obstacle raised by the amnesty laws was duly established by means of said judgments of the Inter-American Court, which by order of said Court have general jurisdiction over any case where the laws referred to have been applied. Therefore, it has not envisaged repealing said laws.  The State argues that the repeal of said laws would imply that they were in force and therefore would be applicable on the basis of the principle of benign retroactivity, which has been established as the principle for the administration of criminal justice. 

370.          Regarding the third recommendation, the State specified that case No. 11.099 is part of the Joint Press Release signed on February 22, 2001. As a result, it points out that, by means of the Executive Secretariat of the High-Level Multisector Commission (Comisión Multisectorial de Alto Nivel—CMAN), in charge of following up on the actions and policies of the State in the framework of peaceful coexistence, collective compensation, and national reconciliation, it has been promoting compliance with the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Commission created by Supreme Decree No. 005-2002-JUS, referring to the comprehensive non-cash compensation program in health, education, and housing for the relatives of the victims of those cases referred to in said press release. 

371.          Regarding compensation in terms of health, the State reported that the Ministry of Health has been forwarded a list of beneficiaries of Supreme Decree No. 005-2002-JUS so that they could be taken care of by the Integral Health System.  Regarding the commitments made by the State for education, the State reported that the Executive Secretariat of the CMAN has taken steps with the National Institution of Scholarship and Education Loans (Instituto Nacional de Becas y Crédito Educativo—INABEC) to grant scholarships for the benefit of the beneficiaries referred to in Supreme Decree No. 005-2002-JUS.  Regarding this, it points out that these demands have been partially met.  As for housing, the State reports that, owing to obstacles arising with respect to the transfer of land for the benefit of the beneficiaries of Supreme Decree No. 005-2002-JUS, it has been deferred.  Finally, with respect to the third recommendation, the State pointed out that the Compensation Board, which is a collective body that is part of the Office of the Chair of the Council of Ministers, shall be the entity that leads and monitors the compensation policy in conformity with Law No. 28,592 and its Regulations.

372.          The Commission considers that the provisional file of the investigation by the Mixed Provincial District Attorney’s Office of Leoncio Prado-Aucayuca is a step backward in carrying out the recommendation to investigate and punish those responsible for the disappearance of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio.

373.          As for adequate compensation for the relatives of the victim in the framework of complying with the commitments made by the State in the press release of February 2001, the Commission considers that, although certain steps have been taken to implement these commitments in terms of health, housing, and education, they have not been implemented completely.  The Commission urges the States to fully meet the obligations that were taken, especially with regard to health care, the granting of scholarships, land titling, and the building of housing, as well as the other individual compensations whereby the victims and their relatives might obtain redress directly.

374.          Owing to the above, the IACHR deems that to date there has been partial observance of the recommendations appearing in the report by the State of Peru.  The measures adopted by the State have been and shall continue to be evaluated by the Commission in the IACHR’s general reports, as well as in the performance of the other duties stemming from conventions and statutes.

CASE 10.247 et al., Report Nº 101/01, Luis Miguel Pasache Vidal et al. (Peru)

375.          In report Nº 101/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the State of Peru:

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.

376.          Regarding the first recommendation, that is, invalidating any domestic, legislative or other kind of measure that might hamper the investigation, processing, and punishment of those responsible for the incidents in a communication of February 14, 2007, the State pointed out that it carried out the recommendation of nullifying amnesty laws No. 26479 y 26492 and that there is a practice of its institutions, based on the rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued in the Barrios Altos Case, aimed at preventing amnesties from being validly opposed to the investigations undertaken to identify and subsequently punish those responsible for human rights violations.  The State of Peru deems that the solution to the procedural obstacle raised by the amnesty laws was duly established by means of the rulings of the Inter-American Court, which by order of this Court have general jurisdiction over any case where the laws referred to have been applied.  Therefore, the repeal of these laws has not been envisaged.  The State argues that their repeal would be a breach of the strategy to combat impunity, in addition to recognizing the res judicata nature of the resolutions that enforced said laws, and because of this to open up the possibility of citing the principle of non bis in idem by those being charged.

377.          Second, as for the recommendation to investigate and punish those responsible, the State of Peru considers that the competent authorities are carrying out the relevant investigations to identify and punish those responsible for the forced disappearances of the persons included in Report Nº 101/01.  A summary of the up-to-date information provided by the State with respect to each case is given below:

1.         Case 10.247, Vidal Miguel Pasache: At present, the investigation is being conducted by the Second Supraprovincial District Attorney’s Office of Lima.  It is indicated that, by means of letter No. 05-2007-2° FPS-MP-FN of January 10, 2007, it provides an account of the various steps that are being taken for the purpose of determining the circumstances of the death of Luis Pasache Vidal.

2.         Case 10.431, Víctor Tineo Sandoval and others: An investigation is being conducted in the First Supraprovincial District Attorney’s Office of Ayacucho.  The State indicates that the case is under preliminary investigation by the prosecution, with steps being taken to duly identify the alleged perpetrators.

3.         Case 10.472, Walter Munaylla: An investigation is being conducted in the First Supraprovincial District Attorney’s Office of Ayacucho.  The State indicates that the case is under preliminary investigation by the prosecution, with steps being taken to duly identify the alleged perpetrators.

4.         Case 10.564, Luis Alberto Sangama Panalfo: Being investigated by the Third Mixed Provincial District Attorney’s Office of Coronel Portillo.  The State reports that the preliminary investigation of the case is being extended because it was not possible to identify the alleged perpetrators.

5.         Case 10.744, Arturo Torres Quispe: The investigation is being conducted by the Second Supraprovincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office of Ayacucho.  The case is under investigation by the prosecution.  In the report by the State, it is indicated that by means of Resolution No.  279-2006 of December 14, 2006, the proceedings were transferred from the First Supraprovincial District Attorney’s Office of Ayacucho to the Second Supraprovincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office of Ayacucho, which accepted to hear the case and conduct the preliminary investigation.  

6.         Case 10.805, Adelmo Loli, Mauricio Saturnino and others: At present, the investigation is being conducted in the Second Provincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office of Huaraz.  The State reported that the complaint has been provisionally filed until the perpetrator or perpetrators of the crime being investigated have been identified, providing for the extension of the investigation in the hands of the Criminal Investigation Division.

7.         Case 10.878, Marcelo Javier Ipanaque and others: At present, the investigation can be found in the Specialized Provincial District Attorney’s Office for Human Rights.  The case remains under investigation.  The State reported that, by means of Resolution of October 5, 2006, it was ordered that the present case be separated from the case of the “Ventocilla family,” for the purpose of facilitating the continuation of the investigations.

8.         Case 10.947, Guillermo Marín Gallegos and others: The investigation of the case is being conducted by the Mixed Provincial District Attorney’s Office of Aucayacu.  The State reports that the case is provisionally filed because the perpetrator or perpetrators of the crime have not been identified and that the respective investigations are continuing in order to fully clarify the facts.

9.         Case 11.035, León Cajacuri Roca: Being investigated by the Third Provincial District Attorney’s Office of Huancayo.  The State reports that the case is being investigated because there are proceedings whose execution is still pending and because to date those responsible have not yet been identified. 

10.       Case 11.051, Adrián Medina Puma: The investigation is in the Specialized District Attorney’s Office for Human Rights of Lima.  It is reported that supplementary proceedings are being filed and that the taking of statements by witnesses in answer to charges has been scheduled. 

11.       Case 11.088, Amadeo Inca Ñaupa and others: The investigation is being conducted in the First Supraprovincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office of Ayacucho.  The State reports that the case is under preliminary investigation and that proceedings have been filed to duly identify the alleged perpetrators. 

12.       Case 11.126, César Teobaldo Vílchez Simeón and others: The case is in the court trial phase in the Third Criminal Court of Huancayo.  The Third Provincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office of Huancayo is competent to hear the case.

13.       Case 11.161, Pascual Chipana Huaylla and others: An investigation is being conducted in the First Supraprovincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office of Ayacucho.  The State reports that the case is under preliminary investigation and that steps are being taken to duly identify the alleged perpetrators.

14.       Case 11.179, León Esteban Romero and others: The investigation is being conducted by the Third Provincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office of Huancayo.  The State reports that it is in the process of taking the relevant steps for the preliminary investigation phase.

15.       Case 11.200, Camilo Nuñez Quispe and other: An investigation is being conducted by the Third Provincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office of Huancayo.  The State reports that the case is under preliminary investigation and that steps are being taken to duly identify the alleged perpetrators. 

16.       Case 11.292, Jessica Rosa Chávez Ruíz and others.  The case is in the trial stage with the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of La Libertad. 

17.       Case 11.680, Moisés Carvajal Quispe.  The case is in the trial phase in the Second Criminal Trial Court of Abancay.  In its report, the State does not refer to the development and results of the trial.

18.       Case 11.064, Cosme Ureta and others.  The investigation is in the hands of the Third Provincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office of Huancayo.  The State reports that there is still information to compile in the context of the preliminary information since not all the relatives went to the Attorney General’s Office to give their respective statements. 

19.       Case 11.065, Ricardo Salazar Ruiz. The case is in a judicial proceedings phase in the Superior Court of San Martín.  The State reports that the case is now in the Mixed Provincial Court of El Dorado.  There is no information on the development and results of the trial.

20.       Case 11.057, Rafael Ventocilla Rojas and others.  Investigation of the case is being conducted in the Specialized District Attorney’s Office for Human Rights. The State informed that, by means of Resolution of October 5, 2006, the separation of the present case from that of the proceedings for Marcelo Ipanaque and others was ordered, for the purpose of facilitating the continuation of the investigations. 

21.       Case 10.913, Juan Hualla Choquehuanca and others. At present, the case is in the Specialized Mixed District Attorney’s Office of Malgar, in the investigation phase.  The State reported that it had rule on opening up the investigation in the District Attorney’s Office, ordering the taking of a series of statements and that the Forensic Medicine Institute be requested to schedule the proceedings for the disinterment of the corpses of the victims Juan Hualla, Francisco Atamari, Feliciano Turpo, and Roberto Quispe Mamaní in the Community of Chillutira of the province of Melgar.

22.       Case 10.994, Teodoro Lorenzo Alvarado.  The case is being investigated with the Provincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office of Arequipa.  The State reported that the case is in the office with ruling pending, as the taking of a series of statements was scheduled for November 2006, although only one of the persons summoned for this purpose appeared.

23.       Case 11.040, Percy Borja Gaspar and others.  The case is in the trial phase in the Second Criminal Court of Junín.  The State reports that the parole granted to the accused had been censured, and therefore it was ordered that they be re-arrested.  There is no report on the development and results of the trial.

24.       Case 11.132, Edith Galván Montero. The case is currently being investigated in the Fourth Supraprovincial District Attorney’s Office of Lima.

378.          Regarding the third recommendation referring to financial compensation, the State indicates that the victims of forced disappearances, arbitrary, summary or out-of-court executions have the right to adequate compensation for the violation or offense perpetrated.  Regarding this, the State pointed out that, through the Compensations Board, a collegiate body that is part of the Office of the Chair of the Council of Ministers, the compensations policy shall be carried out and monitored in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 28,592 and its Regulations. 

379.          Likewise, the State reported, with regard to the health compensations, that a list of beneficiaries of Supreme Decree No. 005-2002-JUS was remitted to the Ministry of Health so that they can be taken care of by the Integral Health System.  Regarding the commitments made by the State for education, the State reported that the Executive Secretariat of the CMAN has taken steps with the National Scholarship and Educational Loan Institute (Instituto Nacional de Becas y Crédito Educativo—INABEC) to grant scholarships for the benefit of the beneficiaries referred to in Supreme Decree No. 005-2002-JUS.  Regarding this, it pointed out that said demands had been partially met.  In terms of housing, the State reported that, due to difficulties arising from the transfer of land for the benefit of the beneficiaries of Supreme Decree No. 005-2002-JUS, it was deferred. 

380.          Finally, regarding the fourth recommendation, the State reiterated that, by means of Legislative Resolution No. 27622, published in the daily El Peruano on January 7, 2002, Peru adopted the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, which was ratified by Supreme Decree No. 010-2002-RE, published in the daily El Peruano on January 23, 2002; and that it deposited the ratification instrument on February 13, 2002.

381.          Regarding the report of the State, the Commission appreciates the information provided and observes that, first of all, of the 24 cases covered in Report Nº 101/01, only five are in the trial phase, although in none of them has a judgment been issued.  The 19 cases that remain are being investigated by the prosecution.  Regarding the latter, the Commission observes that, despite the proceedings ordered and filed by the competent authorities, no significant progress has been made in identifying those responsible for the incidents.

382.          As for the third recommendation, the IACHR observes that the relatives of the victims are still waiting for adequate compensation.  The fourth recommendation was fully carried out by the State.

383.          Because of the above, the IACHR considers that to date the recommendations appearing in Report Nº 101/01 have been partially carried out by the State of Peru.  The measures adopted by the State have been and shall continue to be evaluated by the Commission in the general reports of the IACHR, as well as in the performance of the duties stipulated in the conventions and statutes.

CASE 12.191, Report Nº 71/03, María Mamérita Mestanza (Peru)

384.          On October 10, 2003, the IACHR adopted Report Nº 71/03, which considered the friendly settlement reached by the petitioners and the State of Peru and decided:

1.         To approve the terms of the Agreement for Friendly Settlement signed by the parties on August 26, 2003.

2.         To continue following up and monitoring each and every point of the friendly settlement, and in this context to remind the parties of their obligation to submit reports to the IACHR every three months on compliance with this agreement.

3.         To publish this report and include it in its annual report to the OAS General Assembly.

385.          By means of the communication of February 14, 2006, the State submitted information regarding the state of compliance with the Friendly Settlement Agreement in the present case.  Regarding compliance with the third clause of the agreement referred to above, the State of Peru pointed out, with regard to the complaints made about the application of Voluntary Surgical Contraception (Anticoncepciones Quirúrgicas Voluntarias—AQV), that the Regional Health Department of the Regional Government of Cajamarca informed that a Commission had been set up to investigate the death of Ms. María Mamérita Mestanza Chávez so that the merits of the case could be decided upon in the shortest time possible. 

386.          Likewise, the State informed that, by means of Resolution of January 16, 2007, the Provincial District Attorney of the Specialized District Attorney’s Office for Human Rights had filed Criminal Complaint No. 004-2004, regarding the investigation of the incidents of the present case, for the purpose of determining the “responsibilities of the persons involved in perpetrating the attempts on the personal freedom and life, body and health of María Mamérita Mestanza Chávez.”  The report of the State points out that the complaint referred to above states that these facts constitute perpetration of the crime against liberty-coercion as criminalized in Article No. 151 of the Criminal Code, which crime was supposedly committed by the three persons charged in the trial, to the detriment of Ms. Mestanza Chávez.  The State also indicates that these incidents highlight in addition the alleged perpetration of crimes against the life, body, and health, gross homicide and exposure to danger of a dependent person with aggravating circumstances, supposedly committed by seven of the accused in the proceedings to the detriment of Ms. Mestanza Chávez.  As for the State, it indicated that administrative and judicial proceedings have been filed regarding the staff involved in cases of forced sterilization.

387.          Finally, the State reported that, regarding legislative amendments and public policies on reproductive health and family planning, the “Directive for the Evaluation of Obstetric and Neonatal Functions in Health Establishments” of December 29, 2005, the “Manual of Orientation/Counseling in Sexual and Reproductive Health” of March 20, 2006 and the dissemination of “Moving Toward Safe Maternity in Peru” also dated March 20, 2006.

388.          By means of a communication received on December 29, 2006 by the Executive Secretariat of IACHR, the petitioners submitted information related to the status of compliance with the clause referring to the investigation of the crime of the present case.  Regarding this, the petitioners pointed out that the Provincial Criminal District Attorney’s Office for Human Rights started up investigations in 2004 and a series of proceedings related to the present case.  Furthermore, the petitioners indicated that, after an investigating commission of the Congress of the Republic of Peru remitted its report, the same District Attorney’s Office started up investigations to determine the alleged existence of a policy on surgical contraception issued by the State, so as, if necessary, to sentence and punish those responsible, joining this investigation to the one already initiated with respect to the facts of the present case.  Nevertheless, the petitioners indicated that, after two years of proceedings, the District Attorney had not yet formally legalized any accusation in the framework of the investigations referred to above. They add that, from May 2005, the District Attorney’s Office had not filed any relevant proceedings regarding the case being studied.

389.          Regarding the investigation and punishment of those responsible administratively, the petitioners pointed out that the Ministry of Health imposed administrative sanctions on the medical staff involved in the “acceptance, operation and death of Mamérita Mestanza” and that the sanctions that were imposed in such disciplinary procedures consisted of dismissing the obstetrician and the intervening physicians and their disqualification from practicing their profession in the jurisdiction of the Health Region of Cajamarca.  Regarding this, the petitioners indicated that, without detriment to the application of these sanctions, they were insufficient because the disqualification of the professionals referred to above to work in the Region of Cajamarca would not prevent them from exercising their profession in other provinces and regions. 

390.          Regarding compliance with the fourth clause of the Friendly Settlement Agreement, in a writ of February 9, 2006, the State reported that the establishment of a Trust Fund had been legalized for the benefit of the minors Napoleón, Amancio, María Delia, and Almanzor Salazar Mestanza.  Regarding Alindor Salazar Mestanza, the State reported that he could not be included in the Trust Fund, because on December 28, 2005, the date the contract was signed between the Banco de la Nación and the Ministry of Justice, he had already reached full legal age.  As a result, the State announced that the beneficiary Alindor Salazar Mestanza would be paid the corresponding compensation amount by means of a check made out to his name, upon presentation of his identity card.  Regarding this, the petitioners reported, by means of the above-mentioned communication received in the IACHR on December 29, 2006, that the State had proceeded to pay the financial compensation for the benefit of the beneficiaries by a payment made directly to Mr. Jacinto Salazar Suarez and his adult children; and by the establishment of a Trust Fund for the minors.

391.          Taking into consideration the information that is available and the terms of the agreement, the IACHR believes that the State of Peru has not as yet complied with the provisions of the third clause in accordance with the friendly settlement dealt with in Report Nº 71/03.

392.          Furthermore, the Commission values the steps taken by the State to compensate Mr. Salazar Suarez and the children of Ms. María Mamérita Mestanza for damages, especially the establishment of a trust fund to meet the international obligations of the State of Peru in cases dealing with the violations of human rights settled in international bodies.  In this regard, the Commission considers that the State has met its obligations with regard to the payment of compensation to the beneficiaries.

393.          By virtue of the information submitted by the parties, the Commission considers that the Friendly Settlement Agreement signed on August 26, 2003 has been partially implemented.  The measures adopted by the State have been and shall continue to be evaluated by the Commission in the general reports of the IACHR, as well as in the performance of the other duties stemming from conventions and statutes.

CASE 12.078, Report Nº 31/04, Ricardo Semoza Di Carlo (Peru)

394.          On March 11, 2004, the IACHR adopted Report Nº 31/04, which considered that the friendly settlement between the petitioners and the State of Peru had been reached and decided:

1.         To approve the terms of the friendly settlement agreement that the parties signed on October 23, 2003.

2.         To continue to monitor and supervise each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement; accordingly, to remind the parties of their obligation to report to the IACHR every three months on the performance of this friendly settlement.

3.         To make the present report public and include it in the Commission’s Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.

395.          By means of a communication of December 10, 2006, received on December 15 in the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR, the petitioner stated that, although the State credited the complainant with the real, effective and uninterrupted time of service during which he was arbitrarily separated from the National Police Force of Peru, the related benefits stemming from the crediting referred to above have not been provided.  Concretely speaking, Mr. Semoza Di Carlo points out that fuel has not been repaid, that the difference between his salary and that of a major, which he would have received as of October 1, 1997 by legal mandate, has not been paid either, that the contributions to the Officers’ Insurance Fund have not been made, that the ceremony of redress has not been held, and finally those responsible for failure to comply with orders issued by the judiciary mandates to protect his violated rights have not been investigated or punished.

396.          By means of a communication of January 25, 2007, the State presented Report No. 006-2007-JUS/CND-SE/CESAPI, indicating that, by means of Department Resolution 735-2006-DIRREHUM-PNP of January 20, 2006, PNP Major Ricardo Manuel Semoza Di Carlo, 35 years of age, was credited with six months, twenty-four days of real and effective services, granting him a renewable retirement pension.  The State also indicated that, in compliance with the provisions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 170- DIRREHUM-PNP of January 7, 2005, whereby he was credited for the time he stayed in retirement, was issued.

397.          By virtue of the information that is available and the terms of the agreement, the IACHR considers that the State of Peru has partially complied with the agreement to reach a friendly settlement referred to in Report Nº 31/04.  The measures adopted by the State have been and shall continue to be evaluated by the Commission in the general reports of the IACHR, as well as in the performance of the other duties stemming from conventions and statutes. 

[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT]