I.        EXHAUSTION OF INTERNAL REMEDIES 

        18.        The claimants, other institutions and relatives of the victims have exhausted the internal remedies available to correct the situation, as is demonstrated by the following: 

        a)        The complaint brought by twelve relatives of the victim and townspeople of Cayara before the Attorney General of the Nation in Lima, on May 19, 1988, wherein they also request guarantees for the townspeople. 

        b)        The verbal complaints and statements made by relatives of the victims and townspeople to the Special Prosecutor for Cases of Disappearances, Dr. Escobar, as detailed in his reports (see point 7) dated 17th and 19th of May, 1988. 

        c)        The complaints brought by Dr. Francisco Soberón Garrido, Coordinator of the Pro-Human Rights Association (APROHEH) before the Attorney General of the Nation on May 18, 1988, the President of Ayacucho's Supreme Court on May 20; the Chief of the Political-Military Command of Ayacucho on May 18, and the President of the Peruvian Supreme Court on May 20  (see point 1). 

        d)        The complaints filed by Senators Agustín Haya de la Torre and Pablo Emilio Rojas Rojas with the Attorney General of the Nation, on May 19  (see point 1). 

        The Inter-American Commission has taken into account that, in accordance with the Peruvian legal system, it is the responsibility of the Public Prosecutor's Office to perform investigations to determine whether criminal action should be brought before the Judiciary, and in the case under examination the Ayacucho Provincial Prosecutor decided, by resolution dated January 24, 1990, "NOT TO FILE ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES..." and therefore to order that the case "BE CLOSED ONCE AND FOR ALL."  The Government's note to the Commission of May 10, 1990, reports that the case was closed (see point 10). 

        The same note also reports that the proceedings in the Military Court were concluded on January  31, 1990, when the Supreme Court of Military Justice upheld the dismissal of the case ordered by the Army's Second District Court. 

        With respect to the Public Prosecutor's proceedings in connection with the cases of witnesses murdered subsequent to the events of May 14-18 (Cases 10,276 JUSTINIANO TINCO GARCIA, FERNANDINA PALOMINA QUISPE AND ANTONIO FELIX GARCIA TIPE and 10,446 MARTHA CRISOSTOMO GARCIA) and which, according to statements made by the complainants and Prosecutor Escobar to this Commission, were provisionally archived by the Public Prosecutor's Office more than a year ago, the Government has offered no information in that regard to the Commission on either case, so that it must be presumed that they have been permanently shelved (see points 3 and 6). 

        That, on the basis of that set forth in the preceding paragraphs, the relatives of the victims and the claimants have exhausted all the remedies available under the Peruvian legal system, without having been able to identify and bring to justice those responsible; this situation has moreover prevented civil action to obtain compensation on the part of the victims' relatives, so that it can be concluded that the domestic remedies available in Peru proved to be ineffective in the case under examination.** 

        19.        These events were also investigated by a Senate Special Investigating Commission, which published a majority report that rejected the charges made by the relatives of the victims, plus two reports concluding that human rights violations were committed by the Army, and a third inconclusive report (see points 11, 15, 16 and 17). 

        20.        From the very beginning, in the days immediately after May 14, 1988, the complainants went to the Commission to request that it take steps to prevent further violations of human rights and that the Government be urged to exhaust all domestic remedies to conduct the appropriate investigations and legal proceedings (see point 1). 

        21.        Finally, it must be borne in mind that the case received extensive publicity in Peru right from the start, with considerable national and international press coverage, which prompted the appointment of a high-level ad-hoc Commission by the Executive Branch and also led to the President of the Republic himself visiting the scene of the events (see points 15 and 42), so that it can be considered that the facts forming the grounds for the complaint were widely known. 

        22.        Despite all this and the seriousness of the events, a long period elapsed before any action was initiated in an ordinary criminal court while the proceedings brought in military courts have been dropped. 

        The Inter-American Commission has to report that no other proceedings in this matter are pending in any other international forum.  The Commission accordingly believes that the admissibility requirements set in Article 46 of the American Convention have been fully met. 

        II.        INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS 

        23.        The information contained in the complaints, in the prosecutors' reports, in the Government's replies and in the Senate Commission's reports, enables the Commission to make the following summation: 

        24.        A.  The ambush of the military convoy on May 13, 1988 

        The versions agree as to the occurrence of the ambush mounted by subversive elements on May 13, 1988, at Erusco in the Cayara district of Víctor Fajardo Province in the Department of Ayacucho, which resulted in the deaths of four military men. 

        They also agree that this triggered a series of events in the area in the days that followed. 

        As regards the points where there is disagreement, the Commission considers: 

        -        The Army alleges that this operation required the participation of a large number ("hundreds") of people and with that suggests the active complicity of the town of Cayara.  The Government also maintains that the magnitude of the confrontation caused numerous casualties among the subversives, these being the deaths that were reported as occurring in the subsequent incidents.  The Peruvian Government has not provided any information that supports any of these affirmations. 

        While the versions agree on the occurrence of the ambush, they differ as to its duration (see p. 76, Díez Canseco Minority Report and witnesses' statements in the Escobar Report), the number of subversives involved and the number of casualties they suffered. 

        Regarding the duration of the ambush, it should be noted that while the witnesses reported hearing the explosion at 9 p.m., followed by firing for 45 minutes, the Army maintains that the ambush took place at 11:30 p.m., that it began with the explosion that disabled one of the two vehicles, causing the deaths of four Army personnel, and that the attack by the subversives continued until 4 a.m. the following morning, May 14, 1988. 

        As to the number of subversives who attacked the convoy, the Army's official version differs from what General Valdivia told the Senate Commission; while the Army maintains there were between 200 and 300 subversives, General Valdivia affirmed there were no more than 10 (see p. 77 of Díez Canseco Minority Report). 

        As to the magnitude of the confrontation at Erusco, the Army maintains that, as an immediate reaction to the ambush, the ambushed soldiers counterattacked and killed the subversives, who were buried in the immediate vicinity of Erusco.  To verify the consistency of this version it must be compared with other facts, such as the number of soldiers attacked. It must be borne in mind that the patrol attacked numbered 19 men, of whom four were killed and five severely wounded by the explosion that completely wrecked one of the vehicles (see p. 34 Melgar Commission Majority Report and p. 74 of Díez Canseco Report).  It is hard to conceive how ten soldiers, some of them wounded, attacked at night by a number ranging from 10 to 300 subversives, could have maintained a confrontation for over five hours and killed many of their attackers. 

        It must also be borne in mind that in the place where the allegedly dead subversives were said to have been buried, both Bishop Beuzeville (member of the Commission of Notables, see p. 80 of Díez Canseco Report) and Prosecutor Escobar separately found that this grave contained no human remains and did not have the typical smell of decomposing bodies, and further that it was too small -- 1.10 m x 45 cm -- to contain four bodies as asserted by the Army (Prosecutor Escobar's report).  Neither was the Army able to provide either the Senate Commission or the Prosecutor with any fingerprint identification of the supposed bodies. Finally, it should be pointed out that the reports filed by the "Grass" and "Algarrobo" patrols make no mention of bodies of subversives as a result of the confrontation during the ambush (Díez Canseco Report, p. 81). 

        In light of the existing proof, the Commission is of the opinion that on May 13, 1988, at approximately 9 p.m., at the place called Erusco on the road to Cayara, a group of subversives ambushed an Army convoy, as a result of which four Army personnel died and five were wounded.  The Commission does not find there is reliable proof that there were intense and prolonged confrontations between the military and subversives or that the latter suffered losses; neither does it consider there is any convincing evidence that subversives were killed and their bodies buried there by the Army.

        25.        B.  The body on the road into Cayara 

        The versions agree that there was a body at the entrance into the town on the route taken by the military patrols at the time they went by, and that it was the body of ESTEBAN ASTO BAUTISTA (Escobar Report, p. 14).

         As to the facts in dispute, the Commission takes into account the information provided by the witnesses to Prosecutor Escobar (see p. 14), and which was not subsequently retracted when testifying before successive prosecutors, and concludes that: 

        -        When the troops entered the town around 10 a.m. they met Asto Bautista at the spot known as Alpajulo, and executed him there; 

        -        His wife found his body and hid it that night, but the soldiers came back to look for it, found it and took it away on a truck the next morning (testimony of his wife; see Escobar Report, p. 14), and its present location is unknown. 

        26.        C.  Material damages 

        The versions agree that there was material damage, including thefts, vandalism and arson, and that houses were either damaged or broken into. 

        The Army claims that this damage was done by the subversives to avenge themselves against presumed Army collaborators and informers.  Prosecutor Escobar in his report maintains that the damage was done by the military on May 14 (see Escobar Report, p. 30). 

        In addition to the testimony of the witnesses included in Prosecutor Escobar's report (see pp. 14 and 15), the Inter-American Commission has also taken the following into consideration: 

        -        That the reports filed by the different patrols that went through Cayara make no mention of fires being set or robberies being committed, although it is well known that these things happened, which leads one to presume that they were hushed up by the military, but verified by the Senate Commission, by other commissions and by Prosecutor Escobar (see pp. 14 and 15).  That only later did the Army contend (Valdivia Report to Senate Commission) that these things were the work of subversives and intended as reprisals, but without furnishing any proof of this assertion. 

        -        That the damage and thefts were directed against goods and property of persons on the "list of subversives" that the Army had in its possession and which it later made public; the list also appeared in the press.  The letter in question was reproduced in the magazine "Oiga" of May 23, 1988. 

        -        That many of those whose property was destroyed were later publicly sought by the Army and killed, either on the same day or later on (Escobar Report, statement of Martha Crisóstomo García, p. 16). 

        -        That the witness Fernandina Palomino (subsequently killed) testified to Prosecutor Escobar that "not only was everything in her store taken," but that she also saw it loaded on Army trucks that same day, May 14, 1988. 

        Consequently, in light of the proofs provided, the Commission is of the opinion that serious property violations that occurred during the events under examination were committed by the military, especially on May 14. 

        27.        D.  The bodies in the church 

      The versions agree that on May 14, 1988, there were at least five bodies in the Cayara church, and that on that day and the preceding day the town celebrated the festivals honoring its patron saint. 

        This agreement between the versions is important because it supports that stated in numerous testimonies and by Prosecutor Escobar, to the effect that part of the town's population were in the church and around it, winding down the celebration and dismantling the items used in the procession. It also contradicts the Army's assertion that Cayara had been deserted. 

        The Commission has paid special attention to the following factors: 

        -        The circumstances of the deaths that occurred in the church are derived from testimonies (see Escobar Report, pp. 14 and 15), according to which when the military arrived they went to the church where the festival was concluding and made those that were in the church go out into the square, where they then separated the women and children from the men, whom they ordered back into the church.  The women and children heard screams as if people were being tortured; the men were kept in the church throughout the night and the military cordoned the church off, not allowing relatives or townspeople to go into it or even near it. 

        -        The foregoing was proven by the testimonies of seven witnesses to Prosecutor Escobar.  None of these witnesses subsequently retracted anything when they subsequently testified before Prosecutor Granda.  While there were another two witnesses who denied the events when questioned by Prosecutor Granda, they did not testify earlier before Prosecutor Escobar or members of the Senate Commission. 

        -        The bodies of three persons reported killed in the church, PATRICIO OCAYO, EMILIO BERROCAL and TEODOSIO NOA PARIONA, were found by Paula González Cabrera de Noa, wife of the last-named, in the Challapampa Ravine, according to her statement to Prosecutor Escobar (Escobar Report, pp. 14 and 15). 

        -        When Prosecutor Escobar made his on-site inspection of the graves in Quinsahuaycco, named by witnesses as the place where the Army took the bodies of those who died in the church, he found remains which, according to the report prepared by the police, consisted of human hair and pieces of skin, the estimated date of which matched the date of the events under examination (Escobar Report, p. 24). 

        -        The military washed the church down on May 17, using cooking oil and earth, so that no traces of blood were left.  Nevertheless, the on-site inspection made by the Cangallo judge, Dr. Palomino, confirmed the existence of bloodstains on May 20, 1988, before the arrival of Prosecutor Escobar. 

        Accordingly, in light of the existing proofs, the Commission is of the opinion that: 

        -        On May 14, 1988, troops separated a group of men from their families, moved them into the church, tortured and killed them, burying their bodies secretly in a place nearby, from which they later removed them.  The victims were: 

        1.        EMILIO BERROCAL CRISOSTOMO (50)
        2.        PATRICIO OCAYO CAHUAYMI (60, sacristan)
        3.        TEODOSIO NOA PARIONA (53)
        4.        INDALECIO PALOMINO TUEROS (55)
        5.        SANTIAGO TELLO CRISOSTOMO (60) 

        28.        E.  The events in Ccechua 

        Ccechua is a valley about an hour and thirty minutes by truck from Cayara.  It is reached by a footpath.  Many families grow their crops their and have houses in the valley where they spend the night during planting and harvest.  On May 14, 1988 a lot of people were working there.   

        The versions agree that: 

        -        Early in the afternoon of May 14, Army patrols from Cayara arrived in Ccechua; 

        -        Campesinos (peasant farmers) were killed there at that time. 

        In weighing the disputed facts, the Commission gave special consideration to the following: 

        -        The Army maintains that these deaths were the result of the pursuit operation ordered because of the ambush the day before.  It also maintains that the bodies were abandoned without being fingerprinted or buried because of the urgency of keeping up the pursuit.  This version was also given by General Valdivia to the members of the Senate Commission and coincides with the "Grass" patrol's report.  However, the report filed by the "Otorongo" patrol, which arrived later, states that they found blood and places where the earth had been disturbed, which seemed to be graves of subversives (see p. 85 of Díez Canseco Report). 

        -        The witnesses asserted, however, that the many campesinos who were killed were interrogated under torture and then executed, with their own work tools and in the presence of the women and children, from whom they had been separated (Escobar Report, p. 15).  This version coincides with the traces noted in the report of the "Otorongo" patrol mentioned above. 

        -        Despite the many and serious complaints about the deaths  in Ccechua lodged by the townspeople of Cayara with the Commission of Notables when said Commission was in Cayara on May 21, 1988, the Commission was only allowed to fly over the Ccechua area in the military helicopter that brought them in and was not given any opportunity to make an on-site inspection. 

        -        The Cangallo Province Judge, Dr. Palomino, when he made his on-site inspection, together with two soldiers, found traces of blood and at least five graves in Callapampa, which they were unable to open because it was too late in the afternoon. 

        -        Civilian witnesses all stated that on May 25 the military ordered the population not to leave their homes, loaded the bodies that were in Ccechua on horses and headed out in the direction of Hualla (Escobar Report, p. 16). 

        -        During the subsequent on-site inspection performed by Judge Cesar Carlos Amado Salazar and Prosecutor Escobar concerning the removal of the bodies reported by various witnesses, human hair and fragments of skin were found at a height of about one meter in the vegetation alongside the path, which helps to confirm the witnesses' report that the bodies were removed on pack animals (Escobar Report).  It should be noted that these remains were examined by experts who concluded that they were human in origin. 

        -        Regarding the witness Delfina Pariona Palomino (wife of ALEJANDRO ECHACCAYA, whose body was identified according to the Pucutuccasa report), who stated in her expanded testimony given in the barracks before Prosecutor Granda that she had not seen her husband since May 15 when he had gone with the subversives to Muyupampa, the Inter-American Commission notes that her original statement was corroborated by that of the widow of SAMUEL GARCIA PALOMINO, who testified that she went with Delfina Pariona to the grave, following the trail of blood and other marks and on the basis of the information that another person from the vicinity gave them, and there found the body of Alejandro Echaccaya. 

        -        Moreover Delfina Pariona herself had apposed her fingerprint on the complaint that 19 campesinos from Erusco submitted to the Special Prosecutor, in which they all affirm that the Army forced them to say that Jovita García had been taken away by the terrorists. 

        -        With regard to the witness Maximiliana Noa Ocayo, in her expanded testimony given in the barracks before Prosecutor Granda she appears to be retracting her statement that she saw the soldiers kill her husband and then found his body once they had left (see page 39.4, under EIGHTH, Report of Prosecutor Granda).  However, Maximiliana Noa Ocayo, who is illiterate, had stated to Prosecutor Escobar on May 22 that she was in Cayara on May 14 with her daughter Delia and that they had both seen their husband and father killed (see Escobar Report, pp. 14 and 15).  The fact is that Delia, a minor, with primary education and Spanish-speaking, testified separately to Prosecutor Escobar that she was with her mother on May 14 and they had seen the soldiers kill her father.  This corroborates the original affirmation of the witness Maximiliana Noa  Ocayo and adds a further element in support of the assumption that the expanded testimonies given before Prosecutor Granda under the pressure of being in the barracks and following the deaths of various witnesses were not true and accurate.

         -        A boy, CIRO OCAYO HUAYANAY, testified before Prosecutor Escobar that he was originally put with the men and made to lie face down on the ground and had cactus needles pressed into his back; however, an officer then noticed he was just a youngster, and gave him a slap and told him to join the women and children, which saved his life, but from there he saw the men killed, including his father.  In his report made 15 days after the fact, the prosecutor noted that he could still see the places in the boy's back where cactus needles had been driven in. 

        -        The witness Fernandina Palomino gave the names of those who died and said she had seen them killed, their heads being cut off in some cases.  One of those she said she saw killed was MAGDALENO GUTIERREZ.  The prosecutor received testimony from the minor, Delia Ipurre Noa, who said that she had gone back, eluding the Army guards, and saw her father killed; his body was alongside that of one of her uncles, she said his head had been cut off; it was then that she saw MAGDALENO GUTIERREZ, who was as it were crouching down, but raised his head and looked at her, which frightened her so she ran off. 

        -        Another witness, VALERIA IPURRE MARCATOMA DE APARI, who lives in the valley, testified that on the night of May 14 she was visited by Magdaleno Gutierrez who came complaining of a severe pain in his head and saying that they had shot him.  She stated that she and her 80-year-old mother, SEGUNDINA MARCATOMA SUAREZ, widow of Ipurre, tended to Gutierrez but without using any lights for fear of the military, because they had seen what happened in the fields.  Around five or six in the morning Army troops came and forced this woman to leave the house with her children.  Gutierrez and the old woman stayed in the house.  Because she was afraid, she sent her boy to watch what happened.  On the first day he saw his grandmother and Gutierrez, but on the second day he could no longer find them. 

        -        In the same way with respect to the witness TEODORA APARI MARCATOMA DE PALOMINO, who in expanding on her testimony before Prosecutor Granda in the barracks, appears to be maintaining that she was not in Cayara at any time during the period in question, but was in Ica up till June 15 and did not see what the military did, and denying having testified before Prosecutor Escobar.  In this connection, it should be noted that the Inter-American Commission has been informed that:  (a) Teodora Apari's testimony before Prosecutor Escobar was taped by the parliamentarians who were present there, on May 22; and (b) that she returned to testify before the Provincial Judge on June 11, pointing out where the soldiers cut off her husband's head, indicating the area and gathering soil with blood from that place, evidence that Prosecutor Escobar sent to the laboratory where the experts concluded that the blood was human blood (see Escobar Report, p. 19, which refers to the existence of photographs of this witness when she collected the blood-soaked earth).  This is another case of retraction of testimony under pressure. 

        -        In Ccechua, during the on-site inspection he made in 1988 near Ccachuaypampa, Prosecutor Escobar found among other remains of bodies that had disappeared, the complete skin of a human hand.  Witnesses stated that the troops had placed the body to which this skin belonged, together with other bodies, on pack animals and had taken them away.  They said that the skin belonged to EUSTAQUIO ORE PALOMINO, who was 17 years old at the time of his death. 

        The Inter-American Commission's attention was particularly taken by the difficulties that were placed in the way of identification of this hand skin, despite the request made by Prosecutor Escobar.  Thus: 

        (a)        The report of the police-appointed experts stated that they had only been able to take prints of the ring finger because the rest had already decomposed.  Prosecutor Escobar, who had seen that the skin had not decomposed, ordered the commandant to have the attempt reputed in his presence.  On that occasion all five fingerprints were taken. 

        (b)        When sent to the Investigative Police, they reported that the fingerprints did not match those of Eustaquio Ore Palomino.  Further investigation revealed that the individual in question was 18 and as such had a police file that is set up when an individual turns 18.  However, the person named by the witnesses as having been killed was 17 and therefore did not have a police file. 

        (c)        The Prosecutor was informed, however, that the missing person had registered with the military and that they should have his card and fingerprints on file.  When a search was ordered the card was found, but the fingerprints were too overinked for any comparison to be possible.  Prosecutor Escobar then asked the Attorney General if a comparison could be made with the other copy of the card, kept in the archives in Lima on the assumption that if one copy was overinked, the other ought to be legible.  There is no information indicating that the Attorney General acted on that request. 

        This entire process regarding the hand skin constitutes another serious obstruction of the machinery of justice by means of acts or omissions to conceal evidence (see points 41 and 44). 

        In light of the existing proofs and the preceding considerations, the Commission concludes that military troops detained, tortured and killed the following campesinos in Ccechua on May 14, 1988: 

                DAVID OCAYO CAHUAYMI (62)
                SOLANO OCAYO NOA (29)
                JOSE OCAYO RIVERA (56)
                ALEJANDRO CHOCCNA ORE (58)
                ARTEMIO GONZALEZ PALOMINO (45)
                ALFONSO HUAYANAY BAUTISTA (18, student
                IGNACIO IPURRE SUAREZ (55)
                EUSTAQUIO ORE PALOMINO (17, student)
                ZACARIAS PALOMINO BAUTISTA (58)
                AURELIO PALOMINO CHOENA (38)
                FIDEL TEODOSIO PALOMINO SUAREZ (62)
                FELIX QUISPE PALOMINO (48)
                DIONISIO SUAREZ PALOMINO (42)
                PRUDENCIO SULCA HUAYTA (58)
                EMILIO SULCA ORE (32)
                ZOZIMO GRACIANO TAQUIRI YANQUI (40)
                TEODOSIO VALENZUELA RIVERA (60)
                IGNACIO TARQUI OCAYO (50)
                HERMENEGILDO APARI TELLO
                FELIX CRISOSTOMO GARCIA 

        The Commission also concludes that in view of the fact that the graves were discovered by the local people and inspected without being opened on May 22 during the on-site inspection by Judge Palomino, soldiers removed the bodies and took them away on pack animals in order to hide them. 

        29.        Regarding the events in Cayara on May 18 

        The versions agree on the following: 

        -        That in the morning of May 18 General Valdivia arrived in Cayara, and with the troops that had already established a post here, he ordered the townspeople to assemble in the place where the helicopters land, where around midday he read out a list of names, asking that the persons named be turned in as they were suspected subversives. 

        -        That this list consisted of the names that appeared in a letter that the Army had in its possession on May 14, in which a person from the town reported the names of alleged subversives; this letter is in the official file and the Army recognizes its existence in its reports. 

        -         That many people protested before General Valdivia that those named were not subversives. 

        -        That the list had been updated because those killed on May 14 had already been taken off it, while those who were called were not among those who objected to the General. 

        -        That the people present included the witness Martha Crisóstomo García. 

        -        That not one of the campesinos sought by General Valdivia was located at that time. 

        -        That General Valdivia left in a helicopter. 

        -        That around 3 p.m. that same day, May 18, an Army patrol commanded by a captain arrived in Erusco and began searching for those whose names had been called. 

        With regard to the conflicting versions, the Commission also took the following into account: 

        -        That many witnesses stated that the patrol, which was led by a captain known as Captain Palomino, was looking for the persons named by General Valdivia. 

        -        That in Erusco, on May 19, the patrol arrested ALEJANDRO ECHACCAYA VILLAGARAY, his wife Delfina Pariona Palomino, SAMUEL GARCIA PALOMINO  and JOVITA GARCIA SUAREZ. 

        -        That these people were led away, under arrest, to the Erusco school, with many Erusco residents looking on; about thirty people were being held in the school at that time. 

        -        That the wife of Echaccaya, Delfina Pariona Palomino, was released the next day, Friday May 20, when the soldiers let all the detainees go except for the other three named above. 

         -        That according to various witnesses, on that same day, May 20, in the afternoon, six soldiers took JOVITA GARCIA to her house, where she was seen by her relative Zozima García, whom the soldiers ordered out while they searched the house.  They then released JOVITA GARCIA, but kept her documents. 

        -        Subsequently, the soldiers again went looking for JOVITA GARCIA, at the house of her aunt, Lucía Bautista Sulca, in the night of May 20; they took her from there, arrested her again and led her away with the other two named earlier, ECHACCAYA VILLAGARAY and GARCIA PALOMINO, making them carry shovels, picks, blankets and bags, according to the wives of the two men, who followed them at a distance. 

        -        That on arriving in Yarccapampa the patrol and the detainees spent the night in the house of a campesino, Julio Torres, and set out again at 5 a.m.  According to their testimony, Delfina Pariona and Juana Apari Ore (the wife of Samuel García) followed them to a place called Chaupiccata, where they heard shots which scared them.  Later, while searching the area, they found articles of clothing and soldiers' footprints.  Being frightened, they did not return until 15 days later, when they found the bodies there.  This evidence would indicate that the detainees were executed. 

        -        That numerous Erusco witnesses identified the officer in charge when the arrests were made as Captain Palomino, recognizing him from a photograph that Prosecutor Escobar had of him which was taken during one of his earlier visits when, according to the prosecutor, said captain tried to intimidate witnesses who were going to testify before him. 

        -        That many witnesses told the prosecutor that the patrol took the detainees in the direction of the mountains, i.e. toward Pucutuccasa. 

        -        That, according to their testimonies, some of these persons followed the route the soldiers had taken with the detainees, came to the grave, found the bodies and then went to the house of Flavia García Suárez, the sister of Jovita, whose body was one of those found, where they talked about the matter.  Flavia then told her niece, Martha Crisóstomo, who reported it to Prosecutor Escobar. 

        In light of the existing evidence the Commission concludes: 

        -        That General Valdivia arrived in Cayara on May 18 and read out a list of persons considered to be subversives.  That on that same day, and after General Valdivia had left, an Army patrol arrived under command of the so-called "Captain Palomino."  That in the afternoon these troops looked for the persons named by General Valdivia and arrested in Erusco JOVITA GARCIA, ALEJANDRO ECHACCAYA VILLAGARAY and SAMUEL GARCIA PALOMINO, who were on the list read out by General Valdivia. 

        -        That after being detained in the school, the above-named were taken away by the military to Pucutuccasa Mountain on May 20, 1988. 

        -        That there on Pucutuccasa the three were executed and buried.

        30.        The first exhumation of bodies on Pucutuccasa 

        According to the information furnished to the Inter-American Commission, the first exhumation took place as follows: 

        (a)        On the basis of Martha Crisóstomo García's statement, Prosecutor Escobar ordered that an inspection be conducted of presumed graves containing bodies on Pucutuccasa mountain. 

        (b)        The prosecutor traveled to Huancapi with the witness Martha Crisóstomo García, where the latter pointed out the house of her aunt Flavia García Suárez who, together with her brother Justiniano García Suárez, led the prosecutor and his group to the grave on top of Pucutuccasa. 

         (c)        The prosecutor requested from the Army but did not obtain a helicopter for the journey, so he and his party used two police vehicles.  Prosecutor Escobar was accompanied by Assistant Prosecutor Dr. Santiago Cigueñas, Alfredo Quispe Arango from the Prosecutor's office as interpreter, the Cangallo Provincial Judge, Dr. Carlos Amado Salazar and the Court Secretary, Dr. Vidal Canales, police officers responsible for the Commission's safety and two civilian witnesses. 

        (d)        The vehicles were left at the bottom of Pucutuccasa, with five police officers to guard them. 

        (e)        After making a three-hour climb on foot, the witnesses Flavia García Suárez and her brother Justiniano García Suárez led the party to the grave. 

        (f)        There, upon excavation, they found three bodies and evidence that there had been at least one more. 

        (g)        They took out the body of a woman and brought it down to where the vehicles had been left. They also identified the other two bodies but were unable to take them out because they did not have enough personnel and it would have been better to use a helicopter. 

        (h)        The body brought out was taken to the Cangallo hospital to establish the causes of death and for subsequent reburial. 

        (i)        An exhumation report was prepared which was signed by the members of the Prosecutor's Office, the Judge and the Court Secretary. 

        (j)        Numerous photographs were taken of the climb up the mountain and of the actual exhumation. 

        The Inter-American Commission has also taken the following evidence and information into account: 

        -        That the wife of Samuel García Palomino, Mrs. Juana Apari Ore de García, testified that, being informed by a neighbor that there was a grave on Pucutuccasa, followed the trail with a relative and found a place where the ground had been disturbed; upon scraping some of the dirt away she found a foot and recognized the pants of her husband, in the pocket of which were the keys of her house which he had taken with him when the soldiers took him away.  

        -        That Prosecutor Granda denies that Justiniano and Flavia García Suárez were present during the proceedings.  However, Martha Crisóstomo García testified that on August 10 she accompanied Prosecutor Escobar's party to Huancapi, where she showed him her aunt Flavia's house and told him she knew where the grave was. In that house there were her aunt Flavia and her brother Justiniano García.  Her aunt asked her to stay with the three children because she and her brother were going to accompany the prosecutor up Pucutuccasa where her sister was buried.  Martha then expanded her testimony, stating that when her uncle and aunt came back they said they had identified the bodies in the grave as those of SAMUEL GARCIA PALOMINO, JOVITA GARCIA SUAREZ  and ALEJANDRO ECHACCAYA.  It must also be taken into account that the official record of the proceedings, signed by the prosecutor, his assistants, and the Cangallo Judge and his secretary states that Flavia and Justiniano García were present.  Furthermore, in the photographs of the proceedings, which were widely published in the press, there are persons whom the prosecutor identifies as Justiniano and Flavia García Suárez and that the only criticism of the photographs is in the Melgar Report, which just notes that they should have been added to the prosecutor's file. 

        In light of the existing proofs the Commission concludes that: 

        -        In the proceedings carried out on Pucutuccasa mountain, in the presence of officials from the Public Prosecutor's Office, judicial officials and police officers, the presence of several bodies was established, three of which were identified;  one of these bodies was taken for autopsy and the others were left for a second exhumation when conditions would be better for their removal. 

        -        That the witnesses Flavia García Suárez and Justiniano García, the sister and brother of Jovita García, were present during these proceedings. 

        -        That one of the bodies, of the female sex, identified in the proceedings by her brother and sister as being that of Jovita García, was taken by truck to the Cangallo hospital.