|
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.76
ANNUAL
REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION RESOLUTION Nº 30/88 CASE 9748 PERU September 14, 1988 BACKGROUND:
1. The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received the following complaint dated
June 16, 1986: On
June 6, 1986 Luis Maximo Vera Aragon, professor of education methodology at the
Universidad de San Carlos de Huamanga in the city of Ayacucho, was abducted on a
street near his home in that city at 9 p.m. by a group of men dressed in blue
uniforms who are believed to be members of the Peruvian Air Force. They forced
him to enter the vehicle and fled. At the time of the arrest, cries for help
were heard in the street, but those who tried to approach the vehicle were kept
from doing so by the shots fired at them. Security
officials deny having arrested Luis Maximo Vera Aragon, and his whereabouts are
still unknown. 2. The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights transmitted the pertinent parts of the
complaint to the Government of Peru, in a note of June 25, 1986, requesting
information on the facts set forth in the complaint together with any criteria
that would indicate whether all remedies under domestic jurisdiction had been
exhausted in the case in question. 3. The Government
of Peru, in a note dated July 24, 1986, limited its information on the case to a
statement that it had been the object of a “duplication of procedures pending
settlement by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights.” 4. Pursuant to its
regulations on July 28, 1986, the IACHR relayed the information received from
the Peruvian Government to the complainant so that he could submit his
observations or comments within a period of 45 days. The complainant’s note of
August 4, 1986 presented his observations concerning the Peruvian Government’s
reply. CONSIDERING:
a. That despite
the time that has elapsed, and the fruitless and repeated efforts of the
Commission, the Government of Peru has failed to furnish an answer concerning
the facts surrounding the present case; b. That in
processing the claim on this case, and despite the lack of acknowledgment of its
missives to the Government of Peru, the Commission has extended deadlines in
order to avoid limiting the right of reply to which the accused State is
entitled; c. That the
Government of Peru, without impugning the facts, has limited its action to
denying the Commission’s competence, arguing that this case was examined by
the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights; d. That the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has no evidence apprising it that the
situation of Luis Maximo Vera Aragon has been clarified by the Working Group on
Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights; e. That in the
opinion of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it should eschew
consideration of the present case only if the matter is pending in another
settlement procedure before a governmental organization to which Peru belongs,
and if that procedure consists substantially of the replication of a petition
which is pending or has already been examined and resolved by the Commission or
by another inter-governmental agency of which Peru is a member; f. That,
conversely, the Commission must not refrain from taking cognizance of the
present situation when the procedure followed by the other organization is
limited to addressing the general situation of human rights in a State, and no
decision has been made on the specific facts that are the object of the petition
submitted to the Commission or no steps have been taken toward effective
settlement of the alleged violation; g. That according
to the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights—in particular, Resolution 20 (XXVI) of February 29, 1980,--a decision
on the specific facts involved in the present case does not lie within the
purview of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; h. That
consequently, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is not restrained
from addressing the present case in conformity with the American Convention on
Human Rights and its Regulations; i. That the
General Assembly of the Organization of American States declared in Resolutions
666 (XIII-0-83) and 742 (XIV-0-84) that “the forced disappearance of persons
is an affront to the conscience of the hemisphere and constitutes a crime
against mankind;” j. That Article 42
of the Commission’s Regulations establishes the following: The facts reported in the petition whose pertinent parts
have been transmitted to the government at the state in reference shall be
presumed to be true if, during the maximum period set by the Commission under
the provisions of Article 34 paragraph 5, that government has not provided the
pertinent information, as long as other evidence does not lead to a different
conclusion. THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESOLVES: 1. To presume the
facts reported in the complaint dated June 16, 1986, concerning the forced
disappearance of Luis Maximo Vera Aragon in a street near his home in the city
of Ayacucho on June 6, 1986, to be true. 2. To inform the
Government of Peru that those acts constitute extremely serious violations of
the right to personal freedom (Art. 7) and the right to life (Art. 4) under the
American Convention on Human Rights. 3. To recommend to
the Government of Peru that it conduct a complete and impartial investigation to
determine the perpetrator of the acts denounced and, in accordance with Peruvian
law, that those responsible be punished, informing the Commission within a
period of 60 days of the measures taken to carry out the recommendations set
forth in the present Resolution. 4. To inform the
Government of Peru of this Resolution. 5. If within a period of 60 days the Government of Peru fails to present information concerning the measures taken, the Commission shall include this Resolution in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, pursuant to Article 63, section (g) of the Commission’s Regulations. [ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |