REPORT  Nº 29/91
CASES 10.264, 10.206, 10.276 and 10.446



             1.     On November 17, 1988, the Commission received a petition from Americas Watch dated November 7 of that year.  It alleged a number of violations of the human rights of residents of the community of Cayara, Peru.  Between 28 and 31 townspeople were alleged to have died in three successive incursions by members of the Peruvian Armed Forces.  Those incursions were also alleged to have resulted in arrests, torture, mistreatment, looting and pillaging, fires and other violations of that community, as will be described below. 

             Previously on May 18, 20 and 24 of that year, the Commission had received from APRODEH (Association for Human Rights) complaints concerning events that occurred in Cayara, complaints that, in general, are summarized in the petition the Commission received on November 17. 

             The complaints were accompanied by a number of attachments, including a considerable number of newspaper accounts published in Lima in connection with the incidents, a copy of the complaints that APRODEH filed with the Supreme Court and the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation on May 29 and 20, and another complaint filed with the Attorney General's Office on May 19, this one by a number of Deputies of the Nation, headed by Deputy Agustín Haya de la Torre. 

             The petition received on November 17, 1988  from Americas Watch read as follows: 

             I.      THE FACTS BEING DENOUNCED 

                     On May 13, 1988, a contingent of the "Sendero Luminoso" armed group ambushed a military convoy with 20 Peruvian Army troopers at Erusco, in the district of Cayara, in Víctor Fajardo province, in the department of Ayacucho.  A considerable number of the insurrectionist group took part in the attack, which was done by planting dynamite charges on the roadway.  In the fighting, four senderistas, one captain in the Peruvian Army and three soldiers were killed. 

                     The next day, Army troops entered Cayara, the town closest to Erusco.  According to eyewitness accounts, the military contingent killed the first person it encountered; it then moved on to the town's church, where it found five men dismantling a platform.  It shot them on the spot.  Later, it ordered the people to the town's main square, and waited for the men to return from their work in the fields.  upon their return, the men and young boys were separated from the women and children.  As the women and children watched, the soldiers ordered the men to lie down on the ground.  They then killed them, using bayonets and work tools.  It has been established that in all between 28 and 31 persons were killed.  The soldiers then buried the bodies of the dead in a place nearby. 

                     On May 18, the Army returned to Cayara and, in the town's school, set up a permanent base manned with some 20 troops.  That day, Brigadier General José Valdivia, Chief of the Central Security Subzone for Ayacucho and the officer in command, read a list of names of Cayara residents  supposedly being sought as subversives.  That same list was later published in Lima in newspapers and in the magazine Oiga. 

                     On June 29, 1988, uniformed Army troopers took the following individuals from their homes in Cayara:  GUZMAN BAUTISTA PALOMINO, GREGORIO IPURRE RAMOS, HUMBERTO IPURRE, BENIGNA PALOMINO DE IPURRE and CATALINA RAMOS PALOMINO.  The first two were witnesses to the Cayara massacre of May 14, 1988; the others are the father, mother and sister of Gregorio Ipurre Ramos.  Guzmán had allegedly spoken with delegations of congressmen and with the magazine Caretas about the events that had occurred in Cayara.  According to statements made by relatives of the five when interviewed by Juan Méndez when preparing the report on the situation of human rights in Peru titled "Tolerating the Abuses," the men in uniform burst into various homes at night, beat the two men and, over protests from their wives and children, took them away to the military base, a distance of no more than 200 meters from each house.   The wives and children followed the captors as far as the base, but were intimidated into leaving.  Some hours later, other citizens of the town saw the detainees being boarded onto military trucks that moved out in the direction of the Huyancapi base.  Despite the complaints lodged by relatives with the district attorney's office and other authorities, none of the five ever reappeared. 

                     In the days that followed, the survivors went to Ayacucho and reported what had happened.  When the Prosecutor charged with investigating the disappearances, Dr. Carlos Escobar, went to the town, the buried remains were no longer there; they had been illegally removed.  There were, however, traces left behind at the place where the victims' bodies were said to have been buried: blood stains, human hairs, pieces of clothing, etc.  Obviously, the bodies could only have been moved by a force capable of patrolling the area on a regular basis. 

                     On August 10, 1988, some farmers reported finding graves containing three cadavers.  Prosecutor Escobar exhumed three bodies at a place called Pucutugasa, four hours from Cayara, and identified ALEJANDRO ECHEGAYA VILLAGARAY (referred to as Garay in other accounts), SAMUEL GARCIA PALOMINO and JOVITA GARCIA SUAREZ.  The three had been arrested on May 18, during the military incursion in Cayara led by General Valdivia.  According to the District Attorney's Office, the group headed up by Escobar was able to take only one corpse, that of Jovita García Suárez; because the site where the bodies were buried was so far from any city, the group did not have the transport facilities it needed to take away the other bodies.  The sister of Jovita, Flavia García Suárez, identified the three bodies and the Prosecutor recorded the exhumation.  When investigators returned several days later, the other two bodies had been removed. 

                     Newspaper accounts state that General Valdivia ordered the Peruvian Investigating Police (PIP) officer who accompanied Escobar to tell him what the prosecutor had found.  The autopsy done on Jovita García established that at the time of her death, she was pregnant and that her limbs were fractured in several places and her skull crushed.  The autopsy listed two possible causes of death:  serious trauma to the skull and brain or a puncture wound at the level of the heart.  Later, in an attempt to conceal these facts, the Army reported that Jovita García had been its informant and that she had been killed by the Sendero Luminoso. 

             II.     THE VICTIMS 

                     A.     May 14 

                     According to the information supplied to us by Peruvian human rights organizations, the reports published by Amnesty International, and information supplied by relatives, between 28 and 31 people were killed on May 14, 1988.  It is important to note that the disappearance of the bodies has made it difficult to establish precisely how many were killed and who they were.  Most of them were adult males or young men living in Cayara and engaged in farm-related activities. 

             The names of some of the victims are as follows: 

                     1.     Hermenegildo Apari Tello
                     2.     Alejandro Choccña Oré
3.     Ildefonso Hinostroza Bautista
                     4.     Artemio Gonzales Palomino
                     5.     Alfonso Huayanay Bautista
                     6.     Ignacio Ipurre Suárez
                     7.     David Jayo Cahuayme
                     8.     Solano Jayo Noa
                     9.     José Jayo Rivera
                    10.     Eustaquio Oré Palomino
                    11.     Zacarías Palomino Bautista
                    12.     Aurelio Palomino Choccña
                    13.     Ponciano Palomino Jayo
                    14.     Fidel Palomino Suárez
                    15.     Félix Quispe Palomino
                    16.     Dionisio Suárez Palomino
                    17.     Prudencio Sulca Huayta
                    18.     Sulca Oré Emiliano
                    19.     Ignacio Tarqui Jayo
                    20.     Zózimo Graciano Taquiri Yanqui
                    21.     Teodosio Velenzuela Quispe
                    22.     Magdaleno Gutiérrez Huamani

                    B.      May 18 

                    Among those arrested on May 18 in Cayara were the following:  Jovita García Suárez, Samuel García Palomino, Alejandro Echaccaya Villagaray, Victoriano Apari, Justiniano Tinco García, Gregorio Ipurre Ramos and Ramón Hinostroza. 

                    Of these seven, four were released, and only the following remained under arrest: 

 1.      Jovita García Suárez
 2.      Samuel García Palomino
 3.      Alejandro Echaccaya (a surname that in some accounts is spelled Ichihuaya). 

                    These three persons were found dead in Pucutuccasa on August 10, 1988, by Prosecutor Escobar. 

                    C.      June 29 

                    The persons who were detained on June 29 and who have since disappeared are as follows: 

                    1.      Guzmán Bautista Palomino
                    2.      Gregorio Ipurre Ramos
                    3.      Humberto Ipurre
                    4.      Benigna Palomino de Ipurre
                    5.      Catalina Ramos Palomino 


                    The acts described above constitute a violation of the American Convention on Human Rights, to which Peru is a party. 

             A.    Violation of Article 4 

                    In effect, the acts perpetrated by the regular forces of the Peruvian State involve a violation of Article 4 of the Convention: 

                     Every person has the right to have his life respected.  This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.  No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 

                    The events occurred within an area where a state of emergency had been declared under Article 231 of the Peruvian Constitution.  However, Article 27 of the Convention provides that suspension of some of the obligations under the Convention itself does not authorize suspension of the right to life upheld in Article 4.  As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held in its Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, of January 30, 1987: 

                     The suspension of guarantees also constitutes an emergency situation in which it is lawful for a government to subject rights and freedoms to certain restrictive measures that, under normal circumstances, would be prohibited or more strictly controlled.  This does not mean, however, that the suspension of guarantees implies a temporary suspension of the rule of law, nor does it authorize those in power to act in disregard of the principle of legality by which they are bound at all times.  When guarantees are suspended, some legal restraints applicable to the acts of public authorities may differ from those in effect under normal conditions.  These restraints may not be considered to be nonexistent, however, nor can the government be deemed thereby to have acquired absolute powers that go beyond the circumstances justifying the grant of such exceptional legal measures.  (Paragraph No. 24). 

             B.     Violation of Article 7 

                    The conduct of the Peruvian Sate as we have described it here also implies a violation of Article 7 of the Convention. 

                    Although personal liberty is a derogable right in a state of emergency, such derogation cannot be considered to authorize the practice of disappearance, in other words, detention without any form of judicial control over the right to humane treatment and the other rights of the person detained.  As has been said, in addition to the absolute rights, which are nonderogable, there are others, such as the right to personal liberty, that are derogable; however, this does not give the State absolute power vis-à-vis those rights.  The requirements for such derogation have been described as follows: 

                     A second type of right established in the Convention are those that are derogable provided the requirements stipulated in the Convention are observed.  For restriction of such rights to be lawful, the Convention establishes requirements of i) necessity, ii) temporality, iii) proportionality, iv) compatibility with other obligations, v) nondiscrimination, and adherence to law by those in authority.  (Claudio Grossman in "Algunas Consideraciones sobre el Régimen de Situación de Excepción bajo la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos" in Human Rights in the Americas, Homage to the Memory of Carlos A. Dunshee de Abranches, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Washington, 1984, p. 129.)

                    It is obvious that in this case there was no compatibility with the Peruvian State's other obligations, among them the duty to protect human life, and that the authorities who made the arrests did not adhere to the law. 


                    The Peruvian Government has not relieved from duty the officer in charge of the area, Peruvian Army Brigadier General Juan Valdivia Dueñas, nor any other officer who was in command of the operations denounced. 

                    On July 11, 1988, after taking testimony from relatives on the disappearance of five persons, Americas Watch sent an urgent letter to President Alan García requesting guarantees that the witnesses would turn up alive.  To date no reply to that letter has been forthcoming. 

                    The complaints filed with the Office of the Attorney General by relatives of those who disappeared on June 29 have not produced any positive results and have failed to turn up the disappeared. 

                    The Attorney General's Office, which under the Constitution is the Peruvian institution in charge of criminal proceedings and defender of the rights of the people, instructed the special Prosecutor for cases of disappearances, Dr. Carlos Escobar Pineda, to conduct the necessary investigations to ascertain those suspected of being responsible for the events that occurred in Cayara.  According to statements made to the press by the Chief Criminal Prosecutor, Pedro Méndez Jurado, the Report of the Special Prosecutor had already been completed and found General José Valdivia guilty of four crimes (statements made to Caretas Nº 1031, November 7, 1988).  Nevertheless, thus far the findings of that investigation have never been made public; even worse, no charges have been brought against those responsible for the murders and kidnappings that took place in Cayara. 

                    The situation provided for in Article 46.2.c has thus materialized, inasmuch as there has been an unwarranted delay in the remedies under domestic law; therefore, the requirement stipulated in Article 46.1.a does not apply in the instant case. 

             2.     The complaint was forwarded to the Government of Peru on November 29, 1988, under Case Nº 10,264) requesting of it any information it deemed pertinent within the 90-day statutory time period and without any prejudgment as to its admissibility under Article 42.3 of the Commission's Regulations.  That note was repeated on March 1, 1989. 

                                    [end of petition of November 17, 1988] 

             3.     On the 8th of July, 1988  the Commission received the following complaint, complementary to the previous ones, transmitted to the Peruvian Government by cablegram on the 11th of that month.  The complaint stated that on June 29, 1988 witnesses to the events in Cayara had been arrested and taken from their homes.  The arrested ones included GUZMAN BAUTISTA PALOMINO, GREGORIO IPURRE RAMOS, HUMBERTO IPURRE, BENIGNA PALOMINO DE IPURRE y CATALINA RAMOS PALOMINO, all of which were taken away, and no information about their destination was given and their whereabouts were unknown.  On the basis of this complaint, Case Nº 10,206 was open at the Commission, and the pertinent parts of the complaint transmitted to the Government and reiterated on February 22, 1989  and September 7, 1989.  The Government has yet to give any answer to this complaint (see point 33).  On December 16, 1988, the Commission received the following complaint related to the earlier petition. Recorded as case Nº 10,276, it was forwarded to the Government on December 29.  The relevant parts of that complaint are as follows: 

                    At 5:00 p.m. on December 14 last, the Mayor and the Secretary of Cayara were killed.  Both had been witnesses to the May 14 massacre. 

                    JUSTINIANO TINCO GARCIA and FERNANDINA PALOMINO QUISPE were travelling in a truck with 15 other people when the truck was stopped by men in hoods, presumably paramilitary, who ordered the passengers to identify themselves. 

                    According to the witnesses, JUSTINIANO and FERNANDINA were tortured and slashed in various parts of the body before being killed. 

                    The driver, ANTONIO FELIX GARCIA TIPE, was strapped to the bottom of the truck and killed by a grenade. 

                    The other passengers were then sent on their way on foot, and told that they would be killed if they reported this new massacre.  We beg that urgent measures be taken to investigate this crime and request protection for Benedicta María Valenzuela Ccayo, the wife of the murdered mayor and herself a witness to the massacre in Cayara. 

             On September 8, 1989, the Commission again relayed this information to the Government and informed it that should no response be received by the new deadline, the Commission would consider application of Article 42 of its Regulations.  The Government sent no reply at all to this case (see point 34). 

             4.     On September 13, 1989, the Commission received another complaint in connection with the "Cayara" case, which it transmitted that same day to the Peruvian Government, registered as case No. 10,446.  The pertinent parts of that complaint read as follows: 

                    The murder of nurse MARTA CRISOSTOMO GARCIA by eight hooded men in uniform is hereby denounced.  At 3:00 a.m. on the morning of September 8, 1989, they entered her home in the San Juan Bautista area of Huamanga, Ayacucho, and shot her a number of times. 

                    Following the death of Justiniano Tinco, the mayor of Cayara, Fernandina Palomino, secretary of the town council, and Antonio García Tipe, MARTA was one of the surviving witnesses to the Cayara massacre. 

                    Born in Cayara, MARTA had made statements to Prosecutor Escobar wherein she acknowledged that she had identified the body of her aunt JOVITA GARCIA BAUTISTA, around whose murder Prosecutor Escobar had built his case against General Valdivia.  She had also made statements to the Senate Commission that visited the town one week after the slaughter. 

                    Her death eliminated a key witness in the Cayara massacre.

                                      [end of complaint of Sept. 13, 1989] 

             Newspaper accounts attached to the complaint stated that Marta Crisóstomo had been threatened repeatedly and had requested Government protection. 

             The Commission's note to the Government transmitting the complaint was sent again on March 13, 1989, and on April 12, 1990.  The April 12 note also said that should no reply be forthcoming, the Commission would consider application of Article 42 of its Regulations.  The Government sent no reply at all. 

             5.     On June 9, 1989, since no reply had been received in Case Nº 10,264 from the Government, the Commission sent it a note informing it that the Commission would consider the possible application of Article 42 should there be no response to its request within 30 days.  That note was sent again on September 7, 1989.  On September 29, a note was received from the Peruvian Mission to the OAS, as follows: 

                     As for case 10,264, one must allow for the fact that the internal jurisdictional process has not yet been completed and that the delay in replying to the IACHR's request is because of the need for strict observance of the norms that guarantee the administration of justice, as spelled out in the Constitution of Peru. 

             6.     In November 1st, 1989, in response to that note from the Government of September 29, 1989, the complainant claimed that the remedies under domestic law had already been exhausted, arguing that:            

                     We would like to separate the two arguments brought by the representatives of the denounced Government.  The first, i.e., "that the internal jurisdictional process has not yet been completed," is the issue of exhaustion of internal remedies.  The second, "the delay in replying to the IACHR's request is because of the need for strict observance of the norms that guarantee administration of justice, as spelled out in the Constitution of Peru," is more of an attempt to explain the absence of any response from the Peruvian Government in the case. 

                    As for the first argument, we would like to state flatly that in the instant case, the internal remedies have already been exhausted.  We base our position on the following considerations:

                     a.     The resolution dated November 24, 1988, issued by the Cangallo Public Prosecutor, Dr. Jesús A. Granda Olaechea, decides against filing any criminal charges and to temporarily archive the complaint.  Prosecutor Granda had replaced Prosecutor Carlos Escobar in the investigation.  The latter had found criminal liability and

                    had charged Brigadier General José Valdivia Dueñas of the Peruvian Army.  The ruling of Prosecutor Granda enabled the Government Forces to evade their proven responsibility for the events.

                     b.     Since the Prosecutor is responsible for instituting criminal proceedings, there is no other penal procedure in Peru for denouncing the violations in the instant case that does not begin with the Prosecutor's charge.  By refusing to file any criminal charges, the Prosecutor exhausted the internal remedy available and left only one avenue open for denouncing the events, i.e., the international recourse that the American Convention on Human Rights provides.

                     c.     To reinforce our contention, we would like to point out that since November 1989, no further investigation -- either criminal or judicial -- has been conducted into this case. 

                     We would also like to draw the Commission's attention to the fact that even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the internal remedies had not been exhausted, more than a reasonable amount of time has passed since May 13, 1988, to render a final judgment in the case of the disappearance and death of the Cayara farmers.  Because of this unwarranted delay, Article 46 of the Convention can be applied without first having to exhaust the domestic remedies.

                     It should also be noted that the Chief Prosecutor assigned for cases of disappearances, Dr. Carlos Escobar Pineda, was relieved of his duty precisely because he did conduct an inquiry into the facts denounced and found sufficient evidence to bring members of the Peruvian Government's military forces to trial.

                     Finally, in connection with the second argument used by the Peruvian Mission, we would simply like to point out that even if there were any truth in the claim that the internal remedies had not yet been exhausted -- which there is not -- and that the obligations inherent in the administration of justice as spelled out in Article 233 of the Constitution had to be met, these do not pose any legal or procedural impediment to the Government's responding to the complaints filed with the Commission and unfortunately do not explain the absence of any reply on the part of the Peruvian Government. 

             7.     Attached to the reply sent by the petitioner on November 1, 1989, was a copy of the report written by the Special Prosecutor for Disappearances, Dr. Carlos Escobar Pineda, dated October 13, 1988, concerning the events in Cayara on May 14 of that year.  (The Report is transcribed further on, under this same point.  Hereinafter it is referred to as the Prosecutor Escobar Report.) 

             Dr. Escobar was already serving as Prosecutor for Disappearances for the Department of Ayacucho when he was assigned the Cayara investigation through a telex from Dr. Manuel Catacora González, Chief Prosecutor for cases under Administrative Law, on May 19, 1988.  That same order was given by the Chief Criminal Prosecutor on May 24 (see point 37).  The Prosecutor made visits and conducted inquiries during the days and months that followed.  Those visits and inquiries are described further on in this report.  Much of his work was destroyed in one way or another as evident from documents that this Commission has in its possession (see, in particular, points 41 to 44). 

             On September 21, 1988, the Attorney General of the Nation and Counsel for the People, Dr. Hugo Denegri Cornejo, ordered that Prosecutor Escobar complete his investigation and submit his final report on the case within ten days, after which he would "have no authority whatever to pursue the investigation."  The Prosecutor was so notified on October 3 and delivered the report on October 13.  That report appears in its entirety under the next point.  On October 18 he ceased to be the Chief Prosecutor for Disappearances in the jurisdictions of Ayacucho and Apurimac. 

             In April 1989 Dr. Escobar was transferred to Iquitos as Provisional Chief Prosecutor of Loreto; on July 31, 1989, his services with the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation were terminated.  Dr. Escobar testified before the Commission at its 77th session in May 1990, in the presence of representatives of the Peruvian Government.  

Cayara Case

To:               Dr. Pedro Méndez Jurado, Chief Criminal Prosecutor 

From:            Dr. Carlos Enrique Escobar Pineda, Special Chief Prosecutor 

Subject:         Investigation into the events that occurred in the District of Cayara on 
May 14, 1988, where approximately 50 residents of that district died.  

Date:             October 13, 1988 

             I have the honor to address you to report the following: 

             I.     On May 17, 1988, Mr. Necías Taquiri Yanqui filed a complaint with the Office of the Special Chief Prosecutor to the effect that because of an ambush on troops of the Peruvian Army in the highlands of Erusco on May 13, 1988, which left a number of soldiers dead, among them a captain in the Peruvian Army, army troopers from Huancapi and other bases entered Cayara on May 14, 1988, killing approximately 50 people from the district.  Among those killed were his brother Zósimo Graciano Taquiri Yanqui (the principal of the Cayara high school), a janitor at the high school by the name of Dionisio, and a peddler called Solano. 

             Moreover, on May 19, Fernandina Palomino Quispe, Pelagia Tueros Chaipana and Antonia Apari Palomino also reported that army troops, among them cavalrymen from Huaya and soldiers brought in by helicopter, had broken down doors, searched stores and houses, burned a number of homes, raped women and killed some of the people of Cayara, some in the church and others with axes and machetes.  They then tried to persuade the survivors to say that the massacre had been the work of Senderistas. 

             Finally, by a cable dated May 18, the Pro-Human Rights Association (Asociación Pro-Derechos Humanos (APRODEH)) reported the same events, listing possible victims.  There were 28 people from the district of Cayara on that list.  It requested that measures be taken to secure the release of Petronila Chipana Tarque and Benedicta Valenzuela Bayo, whom the Peruvian Army had taken into custody. 

             As a result of these complaints, on May 19 the Attorney General of the Nation sent a telex, at p. 4, ordering the undersigned to undertake the corresponding investigation.  That investigation was instituted (p. 5) and the inquiries were ordered. 

             II.    In carrying out this investigation, the following inquiries have been conducted: 

             A.    Statements have been taken from the following individuals:

                    1.      Fernandina Palomino Quispe
                    2.      Priscila Isabel García Oré
3.      Fermín Darío Asparrent Taype
                    4.      Raúl Apari Suárez
                    5.      Pelagia Tueros de Rivera
                    6.      Lucía Tello de Suárez
                    7.      Petronila Molina de Sulca
                    8.      Paula González Cabrera de Noa (who expanded upon her testimony on
                             one occasion)
                    9.      Indalecio Palomino de la Cruz
                   10.     Martha Crisóstomo García (who expanded upon her testimony three                             times)
                   11.     Teodora Apari Marcatoma de Palomino
                   12.     Máximo Florencio Contreras Monzón (who expanded upon his testimony
                   13.     Primitiva Melgar Quispe
                   14.     Marco Antonio Taquiri Infante
                15.         Maximiliana Noa Ccayo
                16.         Delia Ipurre Noa
                17.         Valeriana Ipurre Marcatoma de Apari
                18.         María Huayanay de Ccayo
                19.         Ciro Hayo Huayanay
                20.         Julia Noa de Palomino
                21.         Elsa Infante Cuba de Taquiri
                22.         Victoriana Meza Cabrera
                23.         Justiniano Tinco García
                24.         Benedicta María Valenzuela Ccayo
                25.         Gregorio Ipurre Ramos
                26.         Aurora Palomino Suárez
                27.         Pedro Néstor Valenzuela Palomino
                28.         Cresencia Sulca Palomino
                29.         Urbana Noa Suárez de González
                30.         Maura Palomino de Oré
31.         Rufina Palomino Tinco de Tello
                32.         Fabián Suárez Pariona
                33.         Fermín Alarcón Sulca
                34.         María Palomino Bautista de Apari
                35.         Flavia García Suárez
                36.         Antonia Ccayo Quispe de García
                37.         Juana Apari Oré de García
                38.         Lucía Bautista Sulca
                39.         Sósima García Bautista
                40.         Delfina Pariona Palomino de Echaccaya 

These persons stated that: 

          a.   On May 13 last, at around 9:00 p.m., they heard an explosion from the vicinity of Erusco (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 12, 15, 19, 22, 25, 27, 29 and 30). 

          b.   The explosion was followed by an exchange of fire lasting approximately 45 minutes (testimony given by witnesses 22 and 25). 

          c.   The following day, May 14, 1988, between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., they saw two helicopters fly over the Erusco area, land there and take off (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 29, and 30). 

          d.   Uniformed army troopers came to Cayara (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 28, 29 and 30). 

          e.   Many of the soldiers were from the military base at Huaya (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 19). 

          f.    Approximately 80 soldiers entered the town of Cayara (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 9, 10, 14, 15 and 17). 

          g.   As they were coming into town, the soldiers killed a man from the district by the name of Esteban Asto Bautista (testimony given by witness Nº 10). 

          h.   Those soldiers destroyed the medical clinic in the town (testimony given by witness Nº 10). 

          i.    The soldiers broke down doors and searched stores (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 10, 12, 13 and 28. 

          j.    At the town church, where a religious festival in honor of the Virgin of Fatima was being celebrated, the soldiers killed Indalecio Palomino Tueros, Patricio Ccayo Cahuaymi, Emilio Berrocal Crisóstomo, Santiago Tello Crisóstomo and Teodosio Noa Pariona (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 8 and 31). 

          k.    Between 80 and 100 soldiers went down to Ccechua (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 14, 15 and 17). 

          l.    It was harvest season and most of the people of Cayara had gone to their farms in Ccechua early that morning (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 6, 7, 14, 17 and 30). 

          l(1)     The soldiers assembled the people from the district who had gone to harvest their crops in Ccechua, at a place called Ccachuaypampa, between four and five that afternoon (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 1, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 29 and 30). 

          m.   The soldiers had taken Marcial Crisóstomo de la Cruz, tied his hands and used him as a guide to go to the homes of people whose names figured on a list they had with them (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 8, 10, 24, 25 and 26). 

          n.   The soldiers were looking for the homes of Gregorio Ipurre Ramos and Dionisio Suárez Palomino, which they burned (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 25). 

          n(1)  After separating the men from the women in Ccachuaypampa, the soldiers ordered the men to lie face down; they put cactus leaves cut from a nearby grove on the men's backs and stepped on them (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 26, 28, 29 and 30). 

          o.   The soldiers made the women and children run so that they would clear out of the area (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 1, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 28 and 29). 

          p.   The soldiers then killed the men, one by one, using axes, machetes, sickles, and hammers; they hid the bodies near a molle tree (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 26, 28, 29 and 30). 

          q.   On May 14 and 15, the road to Cayara was blocked off by soldiers, who checked all cars that had to go through the town (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 1, 5, 10, 12 and 13). 

          r.    The soldiers did not allow the relatives of the dead men to go near their bodies, guarding the accesses to Ccechua until Monday, May 16 (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 30 and 34). 

          s.    The soldiers tried to clean up the bloodstains left by the bodies of the people from the Cayara district who were killed inside the church (testimony given by witness No. 10). 

          t.    On the morning of May 18, General José Valdivia Dueñas arrived by helicopter at the place used as a heliport; he read a list with names of people from the district of Cayara, whom he said were being sought because they were terrorists; among those named were Gregorio Ipurre Ramos, Guzmán Bautista Palomino, Justiniano Tinco García, Román Hinostroza Palomino, Victoriana Apari, Alejandro Echaccaya Villagaray and Samuel García Palomino; many women protested the death of their loved ones (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 10, 11 and 22). 

          u.   On the afternoon of May 18, after the General had already gone, an army patrol came into the town under the command of an officer in blue jeans, wearing a black ski mask.  Under the black ski mask, one could see that he had blond hair and a ruddy complexion; one could also make out his nose and eyes.  That day, the army patrol took into custody one of the last two people listed above; they arrested the other the next day, along with Jovita García Suárez.  All these arrests were in Erusco (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 10, 35, 36, 37 and 39). 

          v.   The soldiers, who were roughly 20 in number, held these three people at the Erusco school until May 18.  They then took them away, in the direction of the mountain (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 39). 

          w.   The relatives of the two men named above followed the route used by the soldiers when they took their husbands away.  They found some Articles of clothing belonging to Jovita García Suárez about 15 days after she was taken away.  Finally, 30 days after the three were detained at the school, their bodies were found in a grave at Pucutuccasa (testimony by witnesses Nos. 37 and 40). 

          x.    In the early morning hours of May 25, army soldiers took the bodies that had been buried in Ccechua and put them on pack animals and headed in the direction of Cayara, and from there for some unknown destination (testimony given by witnesses Nos. 8 and 30). 

          y.   The witnesses whose identification numbers appear in the right hand column saw the army soldiers kill the following people of the district: 

         Indalecio Palomino Tueros                                Nos. 8 and 20
         José Ccayo Rivera                                          Nos. 1, 2, 18 and 19
         Teodosio Valenzuela Quispe                             Nos. 1, 2, 7, 11, 26 and 29
         Ignacio Tarqui Ccayo                                     Nos. 1 and 2
         Fidel Teodosio Palomino Suárez                        No. 16
         Ignacio Ipurre Suárez                                     Nos. 1, 15 and 26
         Alejandro Choccha Oré                                   Nos. 11, 15 and 26
         Dionisio Suárez Palomino                                  Nos. 1, 2, 7, 26 and 28
         Eustaquio Oré Palomino                                   Nos. 1, 11 and 30
         Teodosio Noa Pariona                                     Nos. 1, 8, 20 and 32
         Prudencio Sulca Huayta                                  Nos. 1, 2 and 28
         David Ccayo Cahuaymi                                   Nos. 1, 2, 19 and 28
         Artemio González Palomino                              Nos. 1, 7, 11, 15, 26 and 29
         Hermeregildo Apari Tello                                 Nos. 1, 11, 15, 26 and 33
         Emiliano Sulca Oré                                        No. 1
         Alfonso Huayanay Bautista                             Nos. 2 and 11
         Zacarías Palomino Bautista                             No. 1
         Patricio Ccayo Cahuaymi                                Nos. 1, 8 and 20
         Solano Ccayo Noa                                        Nos. 1, 7, 11, 26 and 28
         Zósimo Graciano Taquiri Yanqui                       Nos. 2 and 11
         Emilio Berrocal Crisóstomo                              Nos. 8 and 20
         Santiago Tello Crisóstomo                              Nos. 8 and 20
         Esteban Asto Bautista                                   No. 10
         Aurelio Palomino Shoccha                               No. 11
         Samuel García Palomino                                 Nos. 37 and 40
         Jovita García Suárez                                     Nos. 37 and 40
         Alejandro Echaccaya Villagaray                       Nos. 37 and 40
         Félix Quispe Palomino                                    (His wife Ernestina Ipurre Palomino has
                                                                       yet to make a statement)
  Félix Crisóstomo García              (Relatives have yet to make                                                                          statements) 

          z.       The witnesses whose identification numbers appear in the right hand column saw army soldiers torture the following people of the district on the night of May 14, in the building that houses the Cayara Town Council. 

          Benedicta María Valenzuela Ccayo   Nos. 1, 23, 24 and 32
          Domitila Esquivel Fernández            Nos. 1 and 24
          Indalecio Palomino de la Cruz          Nos. 1, 9, 24 and 32
          Abelino Tarqui Quispe                    Nos. 1, 9, 24 and 32
          César de la Cruz Ipurre                  Nos. 9 and 24

[ Previous|Next]