OEA/Ser.L/V/II.79.rev.1 ANNUAL
REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION REPORT
N°
9/91 PERU 15
February 1991 HAVING SEEN the content of reports Nos. 8/90, 9/90, 10/90, 11/90, 12/90, 13/90, 14/90, 15/90, 16/90, 17/90, 18/90, 19/90, 20/90, 21/90, 22/90, 23/90, 24/90, 25/90, 26/90, 27/90, 28/90, 29/90, 30/90, 31/90, 32/90, 33/90, 34/90, 35/90, 36/90, 37/90, 38/90, 39/90, 40/90, 41/90, 42/90, 75/90, 76/90, 77/90, 78/90, 79/90, 80/90, 81/90, 82/90, 83/90, 84/90, 85/90, 86/90, 87/90, 88/90, and 89/90, which set a deadline for the Government of Peru to carry out the recommendations made in each of those reports and to settle the respective case or formulate observations, upon expiration of which deadline the Commission would proceed in accordance with Article 48 of its Regulations and so include said reports in its annual report, and CONSIDERING:
1.
That the Government of Peru has neither carried out the Commission's
recommendations in each case nor settled them in the terms proposed;
2.
That the Government of Peru has neither presented observations on those
reports nor replied to the communications that the Commission has sent in this
regard; and
3.
That the Commission has not received any new information that would
require it to modify said reports.
THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLVES:
To publish the aforementioned reports in its Annual Report of
1990-1991. REPORT
N°
8/90 CASE
9803 PERU BACKGROUND:
1.
On September 17, 1986, the Inter‑American Commission on Human
Rights received the following complaint: Teodoro
Pillaca Tinco was detained on August 9, 1986, in Incanacall, Cangallo, and taken
to the counterguerrilla base of that locality.
He was reportedly held until August 14, although his detention was
denied. His detention was reported
to the senior prosecutor of Ayacucho. He
has not reappeared.
2.
In a note of October 24, 1986, 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 notes sent to the Government on June 7, 1988, February 17, 1989, and September 7, 1989, which referred to the possibility of applying Article 42 of the Regula‑ tions of the Commission. No reply was received to those notes 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 jurisdic‑ tion to be exhausted (Article 46 of the American Convention), in light of 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 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 facts denounced in the communication of
September 17, 1986, on the arbitrary detention by Peruvian government agents and
the subsequent disappearance of Teodoro Pillaca Tinco, in Incanacall,
Cangallo, on August 9, 1986.
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 victim.
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 ] |