SEEN the background information on this case, viz:
1. In a
communication dated October 1st, 1984, the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights received the following petition:
HUAMAN PALOMINO, of 32 years of age, was arrested in his home in
Ayacucho by members of the so called Republican Guard, dressed as
civilians, on July 23, 1984. Police officials deny his detention.
There is, however, information indicating his detention at the
Quicapata Barracks. In spite of the actions taken his whereabouts are
case could constitute a violation of the American Convention on Human
Rights to which Peru is a State party.
2. In a note dated
November 5, 1984, the Commission requested the Government of Peru to
provide the pertinent information, in accordance with Article 31 of
3. In a note dated
January 30, 1985, the Commission repeated its request for information
to the Government of Peru and mentioned Article 39 of its Regulations
whereby, since no reply was received, the facts of the case may be
4. In a note dated
March 6, 1985 (Nº 7-5-M/37), the Government of Peru provided the
reference to case 9467, concerning Felipe Huamán Palomino, the Public
Prosecutor's office is making major efforts to obtain the requested
information as soon as possible.
5. In a note dated
March 19, 1985, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the
information provided by the Government of Peru to the petitioner
requesting that he submit his comments thereon within 45 days.
6. In his
communications of May 3 and June 28, 1985, the petitioner furnished
his observations and comments on the Government's communication to the
Commission including additional complementary information on the case,
summarized as follows:
a. That the
Government of Peru was not actually responding to the IACHR's request
for information but only offering or promising to reply once the
Government Attorney's office completes its investigations;
b. That Mr. Huamán
Palomino's wife had submitted to the District Attorney, in Ayacucho,
on July 19, 1984, a sworn statement declaring that on July 17, 1984, a
member of the Republican Guard took Mr. Huamán to the military
barracks at Quicapata where Mr. Huamán disappeared; that she had
requested information on her husband from the Investigations Police of
Peru, the Republican Guard, at "Los Cabitos" barracks and at
the police precincts in Ayacucho without results, and that the claim
before the Public Prosecutor's office had not had any effect either;
c. That in this
case, as in others concerning presumed disappearances, it has been
communicated to the authorities that there have been obstructions when
investigating on disappeared persons and that in some cases
"investigators have been denied any approach or access to certain
rural areas or detention centers and that these same concerns were
denounced by the Executive Secretary of the Andean Commission of
Jurists in a Report dated October 1984" (Ayacucho and Human
Rights, Center/or Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Nº 14, pp.
d. That the
competency of the Government Attorney's office to carry out
investigations and verify arrests is questionable since the arrested
parties were not placed or held in ordinary prisons but in special
detention centers created by the military;
e. That the
military authorities will not provide information to the Public
Prosecutor's office, and that especially in Ayacucho those lawyers
devoted to defending political prisoners have been persecuted and
forced to leave after having been victims of terrorist attacks;
f. That likewise,
in Huamanga and Ayacucho, the district attorneys have been threatened
by security forces which explains the changing (in less than one year)
of the District Attorney in Huamanga, the position being vacant at
that time, and that after the massacre of 34 rural citizens denounced
by the District Attorney Jorge Zegarra Dongo, in 1984 in Soccos, two
armed men (presumably members of the P.I.P.) unlawfully searched his
home and threatened said Attorney forcing him to resign;
g. That the same
thing happened to the former District Attorney of Cangallo, Mr. Luis
Altamirano, who tried to speed up the investigations in that area, in
particular the case concerning the abuses committed by Colonel Armando
Mellet Castillo and a General with the last name of Noel; therefore we
conclude that in cases of disappearance, such as that of Mr. Felipe
Huamán Palomino, competent judicial authorities are prevented from
carrying out their tasks and, therefore, justice is denied to the
victims and their relatives.
7. In its note of
October 11, 1985 the Commission again reiterated to the Government of
Peru the information offered on the results of the investigations on
this case and others pending.
8. In a note dated
March 26, 1986 (Nº 7-5-M/44) the Government of Peru furnished the
accordance with the domestic jurisdiction, investigations are still in
process on the facts presented in Note Nº 7-5-M/37, dated March 6,
1985 of this Permanent Mission.
9. In its
communication of April 16, 1986 the Commission sent the above
transcribed to the petitioner and requested him to submit his final
observations on the case within 45 days.
In a communication dated May 30, 1986 the petitioner provided
the following information and comments:
9467 FELIPE HUAMAN PALOMINO
its communication of March 26, 1986 the Government of Peru has not
provided any relevant information on the case of Mr. Felipe Huamán
Palomino In its previous response, dated March 6, 1985 the Government
did not respond to the facts denounced before the IACHR on October 1,
1984 concerning Mr. Felipe Huamán Palomino; it has only promised to
respond once the Public Prosecutor's office completes its
investigation. Nevertheless, the Government of Peru's communication of
March 26, 1986 does not contain any information on the investigations
carried out by the Public Prosecutor's office, as had been offered.
Government promised to make major efforts to resolve this case. As we
pointed out in our communication of May 3, 1985, Mr. Huamán's wife
submitted a sworn statement nine months before to the District
Attorney of Ayacucho, a necessary step in order to investigate Mr.
Huamán's disappearance. A year has passed and the Public Prosecutor's
office has had one year and nine months to investigate this case. The
Government of Peru promised to furnish the requested information as
soon as possible and has yet to do so.
In its note of June 12, 1986 the Commission transmitted the
petitioner's observations to the Government of Peru, requesting it
furnish all the information on the case within 30 days.
1. That this case
meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the Commission's
2. That the
procedure before the Commission and the regulatory time limits have
3. That the
information provided by the Government of Peru in the case of Mr.
Felipe Huamán Palomino's disappearance, since July 23, 1984, in
Ayacucho, is completely inadequate and dilatory with regard to the
nature of the Commission's requests and the process and results of the
investigations made by the competent authorities of Peru on this case.
4. That based on
the observations and comments submitted by the petitioner it is
affirmed that the facts claimed are true and that, moreover, the
competent judicial authorities of Peru have not been able to complete
their investigations in a timely and formal manner whereby it can be
assumed that, in this case, the claimants were denied access to the
domestic legislation remedies or that the administration of justice
was unduly delayed whereby the Commission is exempt from the
provisions of Article 46 a, of the American Convention on Human
Rights, and Article 37, paragraph 1 of its Regulations.
5. That the
information provided by the Government of Peru does not include
specific data on the authority in charge of the investigations; the
actions taken; when to expect the examining stage of the process to
conclude (after two years) and its current status and, finally, if
there are any guilty parties presumed responsible for Mr. Huamán
consequently, the Commission, in accordance with Article 42 of its
Regulations and lacking any facts to detract from the claim, concludes
the facts to be true.
7. That, moreover,
in the case that is the subject matter of this Resolution the
Commission has been unable, by reason of the nature of the petition,
that is, the forced disappearance of Mr. Felipe Huamán Palomino, to
apply the friendly settlement procedure set forth in Article 48,
paragraph 1, f of the American Convention on Human Rights and
in Article 45 of its Regulations.
8. That in
accordance with Article 42 (formerly 39) of its Regulations the
Commission presumes the facts denounced to be true, as long as other
evidence does not lead to a different conclusion.
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESOLVES:
1. To consider
true the facts reported in the petition of October 1, 1984 concerning
the disappearance of Mr. Felipe Huamán Palomino, in Ayacucho, on July
2. To declare that
this constitutes a very serious violation of the right to personal
liberty (Article 7) and the right to life (Article 4), established in
the American Convention on Human Rights.
3. To recommend to
the Government of Peru that it carry out, as soon as possible, an
investigation on the events and punish the persons responsible with
the most severe penalties established in the internal legislation.
4. To declare that
the relatives of the victim are entitled to fair compensation,
according to law, and, therefore, that the Government of Peru grant
5. To request the
Government of Peru to report to the Commission, within 60 days, on the
measures taken to implement the recommendations of this Resolution. If
within that period the Government of Peru has not submitted
information, the Commission will include this Resolution in its Annual
Report to the General Assembly, in accordance with Article 63,
paragraph g of its Regulations.
6. To transmit
this Resolution to the Government of Peru and the petitioner.