|
Senator José Navarro Grau,
for his part, issued the following opinion: Since the majority opinion
contains detailed information taken from oral and written statements, from
visits and proceedings in the capital as well as in the Department of Ayacucho,
I shall not enumerate them again and go instead directly to my conclusions. The Chairman of the
Committee and its members have been quoted frequently by the press that are
carrying the problem that has come to be known as "Cayara" as news or
as reading material for various sectors of the public.
This has created some expectations of this investigating committee, which
was to come up with one single version of the facts, since there is only one
version of the truth. However, despite all the
effort and publicity, I cannot honestly say that because there is only one
truth, that is what has been discovered. I
have two different and often conflicting versions, one from the forces of order
and another from those who have appeared as witnesses to the events. Through their
Political-Military Command, the forces of order assert that 18 people died and
that all of them were shot in the course of combat.
They demonstrate their assertion by citing Erusco, Cayara, Coshhua and
the Pampas river, where those who died in combat were found.
In Erusco they showed the tracks of the fighting that began after an Army
vehicle was dynamited. At the other
places, they pointed to other signs to support their assertions.
They presented the officers and troops who participated and had it not
been for the existence of another version from the people of Cayara, we could
have been content with that version. Those who appeared as
witnesses state that these were not combat deaths; in other words, that it was a
question of genocide, where the victims were seized, transported and executed
with machetes, axes, sickles and stones. They cite a number of details which I
need not repeat here, since they are recounted in the other opinions. The disappearance of the
bodies makes it impossible to confirm whether or not these people died from
bullet wounds. Because the two
versions are completely different as to how their deaths occurred, if only a few
of the bodies were found, it would be possible to know which version is the
truth. A congressman whose
fact-finding mission is temporary, only for as long as the investigation lasts,
cannot say which of the two parties is telling the truth. On the one hand, the
political-military command performs its functions by a mandate of the
Constitutional Government and must do so according to the principles of the
Constitution. It is not there of its choosing, but because of the presence
of subversive groups that want power to govern by their own rules, different
from the rules contained in our 1979 Constitution.
Since the struggle is an armed one, it is inevitable that there should be
dead and wounded. On the other
hand, the people of Cayara and the surrounding areas have not just moved into
the area as a subversive movement; instead, they have lived there for
generations. One cannot argue that
their presence constitutes proof of subversion, therefore, since they find
themselves caught between two forces that expect information and support from
them; it is understandable why they are mistrustful and introverted.
Unfortunately, these people are always victims:
whether the casualties be members of the forces of order or of the
subversive forces, it is always possible that either one or the other will
pressure and even punish, in various ways, these Andean communities.
Thus, the action of either of these two parties may ultimately produce
conflicting testimony. The fact that genocide has
been committed in years past leads one to suspect that this is yet another case.
The fact that a captain was killed when the Army truck was blown up leads
one to suppose that the reaction must have been swift and hard against the
authors; so if in the past innocent people were accused and punished for much
less serious matters, the same may have happened in this case. On the other hand, the fact
that the world was told that there were over 100 deaths and that the killing
continued and that the bodies were being left to birds of prey and wild animals
and the fact that not one witness cited these figures or these details in his or
her charges, lead one to suspect that an attempt has been made here to create a
new spectacle, one ultimately intended to weaken the system and the forces of
order. The figure of 100 deaths, at
least, turned out to be a fiction in comparison to the number of people who were
not located and who were townspeople who died under the circumstances that each
version describes. When a fact-finding
commission of this nature and for a specific time period must conclude its
business, the result may be an inconclusive report, as in this case.
In other words, it is impossible to say that these excesses did not
occur, though it is also impossible to say that the effects and characteristics
of the excesses are as described in the denunciations.
Cayara did not appear to have been looted; only 7 of its 400 houses had
been burned. When the committee
visited Cayara, it was somewhat abandoned. I understand what is
happening; the people are afraid, many are suffering terribly.
In the end, we can become confused.
I am thus unable to contribute anything new to the Senate and to those
who, as members of the judicial branch of government, must find the truth that I
was unable to find. Having
discharged my mission, my duties as a Congressman require nothing further of me. IV. CONCEALMENT AND OBSTRUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE The authors of such grave
events as those that began on May 14, 1988, in the Cayara district, took a
number of steps to erase the evidence of their guilt and to obstruct the
investigations being conducted by the Attorney General's office, and provided a
version of the facts that blamed other persons or groups for what happened. 1. Destruction of evidence To make it impossible to
determine what actually happened and the identity of the authors, military
personnel cleaned away the bloodstains in the Cayara Church where they had
killed the persons mentioned under Point II.B.3. The military personnel also
removed the bodies of the persons killed at the entrance to Cayara, in the
church, in Ccechuaypampa and, later, those of the individuals arrested on May 18
and 19, who were buried on Mount Pucutuccasa. The elimination of evidence
is an integral part in forced disappearance of persons, in this case used
against two persons in the vicinity of Ccechuaypampa around May 16, 1988, and
the five persons arrested on June 29, 1988 (fact II.B.7.). Another means used to make
it impossible to ascertain the facts and identify their authors was to
physically eliminate witnesses, a method used in the events described in this
complaint under points II.B.7, 8 and 9. 2. Obstruction of justice As the authors of these
events were beginning to erase any evidence of their actions, they were also
obstructing the investigations being conducted both by the press and by the
Attorney General's office and the Judiciary.
What follows is a list of the most significant measures designed to
obstruct these inquiries: a. In the highly militarized zone under the
control of the Army, shots were fired from a hillside against the group
accompanying the Provincial Judge of Cangallo; the military personnel refused to
continue to accompany them, which prevented the group from conducting the
proceedings on May 20, 1988, to identify the bodies at Ccechuaypampa (Point
II.B.4.). b. On May 19, the Special Prosecutor requested
that the Army provide the transportation facilities offered by the Executive
Power but received no cooperation. When
the Special Prosecutor attempted to reach Cayara overland, he was delayed by the
Army at Cangallo on May 20. The
next day, the Army again delayed the Special Prosecutor, this time at Huancapi
and did not allow the technical experts accompanying the group to continue on to
Cayara, thereby making it impossible to conduct the exhumation, identification
and autopsy of the bodies. c. The Special Prosecutor again requested that
the Army supply a helicopter for his trip to Cayara on May 24; he was not
supplied that helicopter until May 26, the day after, witnesses stated, the
soldiers removed the bodies from Ccechuaypampa. d. The difficulties encountered in trying to get
an identification of the hand skin found in one of the graves at Ccechuaypampa,
which the Special Prosecutor believed was that of Eustaquio Oré Palomino, as
follows: i)
The report of the experts appointed by the police indicated that they
were able to fingerprint only the ring finger, because the rest of the skin had
decomposed. Prosecutor Escobar, who
had seen for himself that the skin had not decomposed, ordered the commandant to
conduct another examination in his presence.
In that examination, the prints of the five fingers were taken. ii)
When sent to the Investigating Police, the latter reported that the
fingerprints were not those of Eustaquio Oré Palomino.
Delving further, it was established that this person was 18 years of age
and as such had a police card that was registered when the individual turned 18.
On the other hand, the person whom witnesses said had died was 17 years
of age and therefore could not have had a card on file with the police. iii)
However, the Prosecutor was informed that the disappeared person had
registered with the military, and that the military should have his
identification card and fingerprint on file.
When a search was ordered, the card was found, but the fingerprint had
too much ink to make any comparison possible.
Therefore, Prosecutor Escobar asked the Attorney General to compare the
print with another copy of the card kept on file in Lima, on the assumption that
if one copy had so much ink, the other one might be legible.
There is no information as to whether or not the Attorney General took
this measure. e. The Special Prosecutor requested that the
Army provide him with a helicopter to conduct the exhumation of the bodies found
on Mount Pucutuccasa. When the
helicopter was not provided, the Special Prosecutor, the deputy in the Office of
the Special Prosecutor, the Provincial Judge of Cangallo and the Court Secretary
travelled to the place in two police vehicles.
Since they did not have the helicopter requested, they were only able to
remove one body from the grave, that of Jovita García, which later disappeared
from the Cangallo cemetery after having been identified by her family. f. The Special Prosecutor returned to
Huamanga, Ayacucho, on August 10, by truck from Erusco, following the
exhumation. The next day, August
11, the Special Prosecutor telexed a request to the Attorney General that he
intercede with the joint command of the Armed Forces to provide the Special
Prosecutor with helicopter transport; the telex was sent again the following
day. Despite that request and
despite the order from the highest levels of government and from the Attorney
General that the Special Prosecutor be given every possible cooperation in his
work, the Army did not provide him with that helicopter.
Because of that, the Special Prosecutor had to obtain overland transport
and conducted the proceeding by travelling overland and then on foot on August
18, as stated in the corresponding record.
As indicated in this complaint, under Point II.B.6., by that time the
other three bodies on Mount Pucutuccasa had already disappeared. g. On September 21, 1988, in an official
communication that the Special Prosecutor received on October 3, while he was
still conducting important inquiries to clarify the facts, the Superior Criminal
Prosecutor, Dr. Pedro Méndez Jurado, ordered the Special Prosecutor to prepare
the final report on his investigation. As
indicated earlier, the Special Prosecutor delivered his report on October 13,
wherein he concluded that criminal proceedings should be instituted against
General José Valdivia Dueñas as the principal responsible party in these
events. On November 11, 1988, the
Attorney General of the Nation sent the files to the Provincial Prosecutor of
Cangallo to expand the investigation. Twelve
days later, the Cangallo Prosecutor decided not to file criminal charges and
temporarily filed the case. The
sequence of events and their nature clearly point to the fact that their purpose
was to prevent any court action in these events.
This impression is reinforced when one considers the measures exercised
throughout the investigations in connection with witnesses. h. During the course of the inquiries conducted
by the Special Prosecutor in Cayara on May 21, 1988, after being delayed by the
Army in Huancapi, and on May 26, he was able to observe the pressure brought to
bear against witnesses by Army personnel, whose faces were covered with ski
caps. He made particular note of
the conduct of the officer in command of the military troops, who was known as
"Captain Palomino"; he photographed him, as explained in Point II.B.6.
This pressure must be considered together with the fact that there was
never any response to the Special Prosecutor's request that the identity of
"Captain Palomino" be revealed, even though the corresponding
photograph was provided to the military authorities for that purpose. i. The pressure on the witnesses is
especially obvious during the course of the expanded inquiry conducted by the
Provincial Prosecutor of Cangallo, during which the testimony was taken inside
the Huancapi Military Garrison. When
witness Delfina Pariona Palomino (wife of Alejandro Echeccaya, whose body was
identified -according to the record- at Pucutuccassa), expanded her testimony in
the presence of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cangallo, she stated that she had
not seen her husband since May 15 when he had gone off with the subversives in
the direction of Muyupampa. This
statement contradicts her original statement, which was corroborated by the
statement made by the widow of Samuel García Palomino, who said that she and
Delfina Pariona went to the grave and found the body of Alejandro Echaccaya. It also should be noted that Delfina Pariona had left her
fingerprint on the complaint that 19 campesinos from Erusco filed with the
Office of the Special Prosecutor for Disappearances, wherein they state that the
Army had pressured them to state that terrorists had taken Jovita García. As for the witness
Maximilana Noa Ccayo, in her expanded testimony in the Huancapi military
garrison in the presence of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cangallo, she appears
to be retracting the statements she made in the presence of the Special
Prosecutor (Section EIGHT of the Report from Prosecutor Granda).
However, Maximiliana Noa Ccayo, who is illiterate, had testified before
Prosecutor Escobar on May 22 and had said that she was in Cayara on May 14, with
her daughter Delia Ipurre Noa, and that they confirmed the death of Ignacio
Ipurre Suarez, wife and father, respectively, of the two women (see statement
under Evidence No. 7, point II.B.4). In
effect, Delia, a minor with an elementary education, speaks Spanish and had
testified separately in the presence of Prosecutor Escobar that she had been
with her mother that day, May 14, and had seen the soldiers kill her father.
This corroborates the original statement made by witness Maximiliana Noa,
and adds yet another element from which to infer that the expanded testimony
given in the presence of Prosecutor Granda, under the pressure of being inside
the military garrison and after a number of witnesses had been killed, was
false. The same can be said with
regard to the witness Teodora Apari Marcatoma de Palomino, who, in her expanded
testimony before Prosecutor Granda, appears to say that she was not in Cayara
for that entire period, but rather in Ica until June 15, and that she had not
seen what the military did; she denied having made any statement to Prosecutor
Escobar. The Inter-American Commission has been informed that:
a) the testimony of Teodora
Apari in the presence of Prosecutor Escobar on May 22, was taped by the
parliamentarians who were present at the time; and b) she testified again in the
presence of the Provincial Judge, on June 11, indicating the place where
soldiers had cut off her husband's head, pointing out the area and gathering
blood-stained soil from the site, evidence that Prosecutor Escobar sent to the
laboratory where experts concluded that it was human blood (See Escobar Report
where it mentions the existence of photographs of this witness at the time she
was removing the blood-stained soil). This
is another case of testimony retracted under duress. 3. Elaboration of self-serving
versions The measures taken to
conceal the authorship of these events include the preparation of accounts
designed to provide justifications for the action undertaken, to blame other
agents and to discredit the work of those whose conclusions differ. It is possible to discern
certain basic lines, both in the Army's versions and in the majority opinion of
the Senate Investigating Committee. While
it is acknowledged that an undetermined number of deaths occurred, it is alleged
that these deaths occurred during the course of armed confrontation, both in
Erusco and later in Cchechuaypampa. At
a time when the Army had already established complete control over Cayara,
Erusco and surrounding areas, and had even set up a military base in the school,
these accounts claim that subversive groups removed all of the bodies to prevent
them from being identified and that subversives kidnapped Jovita García,
Alejandro Echeccaya and Samuel García Palomino and caused them to disappear,
again at a time when the military was in full control of the area.
The military versions and the majority report of the Senate Committee say
that Jovita García was the Army informant who wrote the anonymous letter.
Even though the letter was written by "un patriota legal" [a
true patriot] who asked that "el nombre del portador" [the name of the
bearer] (the masculine gender is used in the Spanish) not be revealed. The self-serving versions
also contend that any opinions contrary to their own are calculated to discredit
the armed forces and thwart the anti-subversive effort.
Thus, for example, the majority opinion of the Senate Investigating
Committee elaborates upon the argument contained in the report filed by General
Valdivia with the Provincial Prosecutor of Cangallo concerning the illegal and
politically motivated conduct of the Special Prosecutor, adding an attack
against the professional ethics of the interpreter. This argument and the
political maneuvering that it triggered, led to the replacement of Prosecutor
Escobar by Prosecutor Granda, whose decision to temporarily file the case was
based on testimony whose credibility has already been brought into question in
this complaint, because it deviated from the original version, was given inside
an Army garrison, after a number of witnesses had already been pressured to
alter their testimony and others had been detained, killed or disappeared. V. THE PROOF 1. Documentary evidence The Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights bases the assertions contained in this complaint on
the evidence contained in the eight Appendices that are attached hereto and on
the documentary evidence that is offered in connection with each specific fact
(points II.B.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9). 2. Testimonial evidence The Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights believes that the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights should take testimony from the following persons: 2.1. Dr. Carlos Enrique Escobar Pineda Taking into account the
fact that during the course of the investigations conducted in Peru into the
facts that are the subject of this complaint, certain witnesses have been
physically eliminated while others have been subjected to pressure to force them
to change their original testimony, the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights believes that the Inter-American Court must establish a method by which
to take a body of testimony in such a way that the personal safety of the
witnesses and the integrity and accuracy of their testimony are guaranteed.
Since the method to be used must take into account the specifics of each
individual's unique situation, the Inter-American Commission offers its services
to the Inter-American Court to provide it with the specifics required in each
case, which should be taken into account when receiving each body of testimony.
The names of the witnesses would be reported to the Court once the method
described herein has been established. 3. Request for documentation The Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights is petitioning the Court to require the following
documents of the Government of Peru: 3.1. The
proceedings upon which the Report of the Senate Investigating Committee was
based 3.2. The files
upon which the Report of the Office of the Army Inspector General on the facts
that are the subject of this complaint was based. 3.3. The
proceedings conducted in the Military Courts that led to the dismissal of the
case involving the events that are the subject of this complaint. 3.4. Investigations
Nos. 476 and 477 of the Special Prosecutor, concerning complaints of the
disappearances of relatives of the victims of fact II.B.7. VI.
LEGAL GROUNDS
The Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights has processed the instant case in accordance with its
Regulations and the pertinent provisions of the American Convention on Human
Rights, of which the Republic of Peru is a State Party and has recognized the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on January
21, 1981. In submitting the present
complaint, the Commission is acting under the provisions of Article 50 and 51 of
the American Convention, after having analyzed the submission presented by the
Government of Peru on May 27, 1991, the led to Resolution 1/91 concerning Report
29/91, which documents are attached to the present complaint.
It has also taken into account the fact that the Government of Peru
reiterated its positions on January 11, 1992.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, therefore, is proceeding
pursuant to the provisions of Article 63.1 of the Convention and is requesting
that the Inter-American Court fix the amount appropriate for payment of a
"fair compensation to the injured party." As for the exhaustion of
domestic remedies, suffice it to say that the matter is thoroughly examined in
Report 29/91 and in Chapter III.1. of this complaint on the measures taken by
the office of the Attorney General. The specific facts set
forth in this complaint involve multiple violations perpetrated by agents of the
Peruvian State, violations of provisions of the American Convention on Human
Rights as indicated in point I concerning the purpose of the complaint. As for forced
disappearance, it should be noted
that the Commission, the literature, the practice of other international human
rights organs, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States and
recently the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has
qualified it as a crime against humanity (Velásquez, paragraphs 151-153; Godínez,
paragraphs 159-161). As has been
noted, disappearance is a multiple and continual violation of essential legal
rights protected under the American Convention on Human Rights that the states
parties, voluntarily and in good faith, have pledged to respect and guarantee (Velásquez,
para. 155; Godínez para. 163). The Commission concurs with
the Court where it states that the forced disappearance of persons is one of the
most serious violations of human rights that a State Party to the Convention can
commit, since it represents "... a radical departure from this treaty,
inasmuch as it implies a crass abandonment of the values that emanate from human
dignity and of the principles that lie at the very foundation of the
inter-American system and this Convention"
(Velásquez, para. 158; Godínez para 166). Forced disappearance of
persons begins with the victim's illegal detention by agents of the State, who
normally operate in full daylight. The
victim is taken to some secret place or irregular detention center.
To relatives and authorities in charge of the investigation, those agents
systematically deny the very fact of the detention, the condition of the victim
and his/her final whereabouts. The
lack of a formal acknowledgement of the illegal detention allows the agents of
the State to operate with total impunity, beyond the boundaries of any
jurisdictional control. That
situation obtains in the case under examination by virtue of the regulations
governing states of emergency in Peru, which give the chiefs of the
political-military commands extraordinary powers. This unlawful deprivation of freedom constitutes a flagrant
violation of Article 7 of the American Convention, which protects the right to
personal liberty. In the instant case, as
established in the description of the specific facts (Section II.B. 3, 4, 5, 6
and 7), members of the Peruvian Army made a number of unlawful arrests in a
succession of operations that began on May 14, 1988, and ended on June 29 of
that year. The Commission's experience
and the characteristics of the instant case confirm that once in captivity, the
victim of an unlawful privation of freedom under the conditions herein
described, is tortured and subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment
by agents of the State. This
constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the American Convention, which
recognizes every person's right to physically, psychologically and emotionally
humane treatment. In the case being
submitted to the Court, the testimony presented in evidence in support of facts
II.B. 3., 4 and 5 recount the torture of the victims in those incidents. The legal remedies,
especially habeas corpus, which would have been the proper remedy to
determine the whereabouts of the person and protect the rights of one detained,
are ineffectual, which in itself constitutes a violation of judicial guarantees
(Article 8) and the right to judicial protection (Article 25) recognized in the
American Convention. In the case presented in
this complaint, the arbitrary arrests and torture were followed by the summary
execution of the victims mentioned in the specific facts II.B.1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and
9, which constitutes a grave violation of the right to life recognized in
Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
Two victims of specific fact II.B. 4 and the victims of fact II.B. 7
likely met with the same fate. This
involves seven victims whose situation, strictly speaking, is enforced
disappearance, since unlike the other cases, their death has not yet been
established. It should be pointed out
that in the instant case, presented to the Inter-American Court, the Government
of Peru, through the actions of its agents, not only has failed to respect and
guarantee the exercise and the rights of the victims in accordance with Article
1.1 of the American Convention, but those agents have executed a number of
actions to obstruct the administration of justice and make it impossible to
identify the authors of these specific facts.
Thus, witnesses and/or relatives of victims have been eliminated and
threatened, consciously and deliberately; the bodies of the persons executed
have been removed; evidence has been destroyed, cover-up operations have been
conducted, judicial investigations have been obstructed and the individual who
attempted to conduct an independent investigation was threatened and ultimately
severed from service with the State and forced to seek refuge abroad. The other objective of all this has been to conceal the
whereabouts of the victims and erase the crime from the public's memory. Finally, the Commission
must point to the violations committed by members of the Peruvian Army against
public and private property belonging to some of the victims in this case.
As recounted under Fact II.B. 2, agents of the Peruvian State destroyed
movable and immovable property belonging both to the State and to private
parties. This constitutes a
violation of Article 21 of the Convention, which makes it incumbent upon the
Peruvian State to protect the right to private property. The facts in this case
reveal that the Peruvian State has international responsibilities that follow
from the violation of its obligations under the provisions of the American
Convention. In effect, Article 1.1
of the Convention provides that every State Party undertakes the obligation to
adopt whatever measures are needed to ensure juridically, to all persons within
its jurisdiction, the effective enjoyment of the rights recognized in the
Convention. As a result of this
obligation, the State must prevent and investigate violations of the human
rights recognized in the Convention; try and punish those responsible for those
crimes; inform the family of the whereabouts of persons who have disappeared and
indemnify (when it is impossible to restore the victim in the exercise of his or
her rights) for any damages caused by the human rights violations committed by
agents of the State (Velásquez paragraph 166; Godínez paragraph 175). The background information
submitted by the Commission, the attached evidence and those that it will submit
to the Court at the appropriate time, demonstrate that the case submitted to the
Court caused a public commotion in Peru to the point that the President of the
Republic at that time, Dr. Alán García Pérez, visited the scene of the events
and publicly pledged to have them fully clarified.
The Peruvian press gave extensive coverage to the work of the Commission
of Notables and the Senate Investigating Committee, and to the frustrated
judicial investigation of the Special Prosecutor, Dr. Carlos Escobar.
However, almost four years have passed since this massacre was committed
and, despite efforts made by some Peruvian authorities and the Commission, there
are still no remains of the disappeared victims nor of the bodies of those
executed, nor has anyone been convicted or even indicted for the crimes
committed in connection with these events. The Commission will prove
to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that the Peruvian State has not made
any serious attempt to investigate these facts, punish those responsible, adopt
the measures necessary to prevent crimes of this nature in the future and
compensate the victims and/or their families for the damages suffered. The passive attitude demonstrated by the Peruvian State vis-à-vis
a massacre of such proportions, combined with the concealment, obstruction of
justice and elimination of evidence by its agents, proves that the Peruvian
State has violated its obligation to guarantee the free exercise of the
fundamental rights upheld in the Convention, in accordance with Article 1.1 of
the American Convention, of which Peru is a State Party. VII.
CONCLUSIONS
In submitting the instant
case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights reiterates that it is convinced that the Peruvian State is
internationally accountable for the violations of the rights recognized in
articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, committed
by members of the Army against persons under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian
State, during the course of events that began on May 14, 1988, in the district
of Cayara, Province of Víctor Fajardo, Department of Ayacucho and that
culminated on September 8, 1989. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is equally convinced that the Peruvian State has failed to honor its obligations under the provisions of Article 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, inasmuch as it has not adopted measures to guarantee the exercise of the rights recognized in that international instrument; instead, its agents have systematically attempted to obstruct a clarification of the facts and identification of those responsible. As a result, the grave violations set forth in this action go unpunished and the very institutions of the State charged, under the National Constitution, with safeguarding the rights of the inhabitants of Peru and investigating and punishing those responsible for violations of human rights have been adversely affected. It has thus committed acts classified as crimes under Peru's domestic laws. [ Previous|Next] |