|
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.76
ANNUAL
REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION RESOLUTION Nš 33/88 CASE 9786 PERU September 14, 1988 BACKGROUND:
1. The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received the following complaint dated
October 6, 1986: a. Juan Geldres Oroxco,
President of the Agrarian League of Santa Rosa, was arrested on September 16,
1986, in the District of Atna, Province of La Mar, by members of the Luisiana
naval infantry on the Apurimac River. The use of torture has been reported at that barrack. b. Benigno Contreras,
37 years of age, was arrested at his home in the city of Ayacucho by members of
the Army Intelligence Service on September 24, 1986, in the presence of several
witnesses. 2. The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights transmitted the pertinent parts of the
complaint to the Government of Peru, in a note of October 8, 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 October 22, 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 its
regulations the Commission sent the complainant the information it had received
from the Government of Peru so that he could present his observations or
comments. The Commission has had no
further word from the complainant. 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 acknowledgement of
its missives to the Government of Peru, that 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 Juan Geldres Orozco and Benigno Contreras 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 to
be true the facts reported in the complaint dated October 6, 1986, concerning
the forced disappearances of: a.
Juan Geldres Orozco in the District of Atna, Province of La Mar, by
member of the Naval Infantry, and b.
Benigno Contreras from his home in the city of Ayacucho by members of the
Army Intelligence Service. 2. To inform the
Government of Peru hat 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 hat 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 ] |