|
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.79.rev.1 ANNUAL
REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION
REPORT
N°
27/90 CASE
10.183 PERU BACKGROUND:
1.
On April 11, 1988, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
received the following complaint:
We report the arrest and subsequent disappearance of Manuel Tuanama
Garcia and Estalin Fasanando Upiachihua in the settlement of Gonzalez Prada, Río
Braño, District of Cusco, Province of Bellavista, Department of San Martin, by
a military patrol, on March 29, 1988. The
arrest took place before numerous witnesses, but the Peruvian Army denies
holding these individuals. They are
presumed to have been transferred to the Mariscal Caceres barracks in Morales.
2.
In a note of April 13, 1988, the Commission transmitted the pertinent
parts of the complaint to the Government of the Republic of Peru, with a request
for any relevant information, but failed to receive a reply within the statutory
period.
3.
The request for information was reiterated through note sent to the
Government on September 7, 1989, which referred to the possibility of applying
Article 42 of the Regulations of the Commission.
No reply was received to that note either. CONSIDERING:
1.
That in resolution AG/RES. 666 (XIII-O/83) the General Assembly
declared that "the practice of forced disappearance of persons in the
Americas is an affront to the conscience of the hemisphere and constitutes a
crime against humanity."
2.
That the period established in Article 34, paragraph 5, of the
Regulations of the Commission has elapsed without the Government of Peru having
responded to the request for information made by the IACHR in the notes referred
to in the background section of this report, so that it may be presumed that
there are not any remedies under domestic jurisdiction to be exhausted (Article
46 of the American Convention), in light of the adversarial procedure
established in that Convention.
3.
That Article 42 of the Regulations of the Commission reads:
Article 42
The facts reported in the petition whose pertinent parts have been
transmitted to the government of the State in reference if, during the maximum
period set by the Commission under the provisions of Article 34, paragraph 5,
the government has not provided the pertinent information, as long as other
evidence does not lead to a different conclusion.
4.
That Article 1, paragraph 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights
reads:
Article 1. Obligation to
Respect Rights 1.
The States Parties to this Convention undertake 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 and freedoms, without
any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth,
or any other social condition.
5.
That the Republic of Peru is a State Party to the American Convention on
Human Rights and has ratified the binding jurisdiction of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Therefore, in view of the related background and the considerations as
well as of the fact that the Commission does not have any other evidence that
would lead it to a different conclusion, based on Article 42 of its Regulations,
THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESOLVES:
1.
To presume to be true the claims presented in the April 11, 1988,
correspondence pertaining to the arbitrary arrest by agents of the Peruvian
state and subsequent disappearance of Manuel Tuanama Garcia and Estalin
Fasanando Upiachihua in the settlement of Gonzalez Prada, Río Braño, District
of Cusco, Department of San Martin, on March 29, 1988.
2.
To declare that that act constitutes a serious violation by the Peruvian
state of the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty and a fair trial
(Articles 4, 5, 7, and 8, respectively, of the American Convention on Human
Rights).
3.
To recommend to the Government of Peru that it conduct the most
exhaustive investigation possible of the acts denounced in order to identify
those who are directly or indirectly responsible so that they may receive the
corresponding legal penalties and that it inform the Commission of its decision
and the measures taken, within a maximum period of 60 days.
4.
To recommend to the Government of Peru that it adopt the measures
established under national law to indemnify the families of the victims.
5.
To transmit this report to the Government of the Republic of Peru and to
the petitioners.
6.
If, within the period set in operative paragraph 3 of this report, the
Government of Peru has not presented observations, the Commission shall include
this report in its Annual Report to the General Assembly, in accordance with
Article 48 of the Regulations of the Commission. [ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |