SEEN the background information on this case, viz:
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received the following
petition in a communication dated August 29, 1984:
have received information claiming that JAIME AYALA SULCA HUANTA, a
newspaper correspondent of the journal "La República" has
disappeared after his arrest on August 2, 1984 at the Navy facilities
in Huanta, Department of Ayacucho. Mr. Ayala had gone there to
complain about police conduct towards his mother who had come to his
house the night before. The Armed Forces Joint Command denied his
detention in Huanta. There is no further information on his
whereabouts. All the legal remedies possible under the prevailing
State of Emergency in Peru have been exhausted. We ask the Commission
to take immediate action and request the Government of Peru to
acknowledge his detention, clarify his legal and personal situation
and guarantee his physical integrity. Recently, in the Ayacucho
region, numerous disappearances and illegal executions have occurred
2. In a cablegram
dated September 4, 1984 the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts
of the petition to the Government of Peru requesting it to provide
information in accordance with Article 34 (formerly 31) of the
Regulations. This request was repeated in a note dated September 11,
1984, and again in a second note on January 30, 1985 which also
considered the application of Article 42 (formerly 39) of the
Regulations whereby the facts reported will be considered to be true.
3. In a note dated
May 6, 1985 (No 7-5-M/37), the Government of Peru submitted the
regard to Case 9425 concerning the citizen Jaime Ayala Sulca, the
District Attorney's Office has taken the corresponding actions to
thoroughly investigate the petition and to determine who is
responsible. The investigations commenced on August 2, 1984 as a
result of the petition submitted to this District Attorney's Office by
the citizen Carlos Paz Villantoy.
4. In a note dated
May 12, 1985 the Commission transmitted to the petitioner the
pertinent parts of the information transcribed above and requested
that he send his observations or comments within a period of 45 days.
5. Since the
Commission, in its note of October 11, 1985, reiterated the
information to the Government of Peru on pending cases, in process,
the Government of Peru, in a note dated March 26, 1986 (No 7-5-M/44)
provided additional information to the Commission on the progress of
the investigation of this case by national authorities. That
information was the following:
Case 9425, on January 29 the Supreme Court of the Republic, through
its second criminal court, pronounced judgement establishing that the
judicial investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Jaime Ayala Sulca
should be continued in the civil courts under the ad-hoc examining
magistrate of Huamanga. In this way the request to transfer the case
to military courts was rejected.
6. In its
communication of April 15, 1986, the Commission transmitted to the
petitioner the pertinent parts of the additional information sent by
the Government of Peru and requested his observations and comments
pointing out to him that if they were not received within a period of
45 days, the processing of the case would be discontinued.
7. In his
communication of June 6, 1986, the petitioner sent the following
comments and additional information on the case:
know that the former Navy Commander of the Huanta Province, Lieutenant
Commander Alvaro Artaza Adrianzén and Second Class Petty Officer A.P.
Roman Martínez Heredia have been accused of the disappearance of
Jaime Ayala Sulca, of the death of six members of the Calqui
Presbyterian Church, and also of the arrest and death of 50
individuals found in common graves in Pucayacu, near Huanta, in August
1984. Nevertheless, the action against these two men was delayed by a
jurisdictional conflict between the civil courts and the Navy courts.
January 24, 1986 the Supreme Court decided that the military courts
would have jurisdiction over the Calqui and Pucayacu cases but that
the civil courts would have jurisdiction in the proceedings against
Lieutenant Commander Artaza Adrianzén for the disappearance of Jaime
Ayala Sulca. It was not possible to confirm if the same decision is
also applicable to the case of Petty Officer Martínez Heredia.
Commander Artaza Adrianzén has not been seen, nor have his
whereabouts been known, since February 2, almost a week after the
Supreme Court decision, when a military spokesman said that he had
been kidnapped. The following week a television documentary, which
implied that Lieutenant Commander Artaza Adrianzén had been taken out
of the country by the Peruvian Navy to avoid trial, was banned (copies
of the reports related to the incident are enclosed).
have not received any information on Lieutenant Commander Artaza
Adrienzén's status and therefore request the Commission to require
the Government to furnish information on his present whereabouts.
have also received reports that family members of Jaime Ayala Sulca
have received death threats from anonymous callers, and have been
warned not to continue to insist on the trial. The family of Attorney
Augusto Zuñiga has also been threatened.
8. In a note dated
June 23, 1986 the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of this
information and comments to the Government of Peru.
9. In a note dated
July 30, 1986 (Nº 7-5--M/128), the Government of Peru said the
respect to Case 9425 it is to be noted that the observations expressed
by the petitioner to the Commission have no value at all since they
furnish no legal arguments whatsoever. Also, it is worth noting that,
as in the former case, domestic remedies have not been exhausted and,
therefore, this petition should not be admitted.
In its communication of August 4, 1986, the Commission
transmitted the above-mentioned reply to the petitioner.
1. That the facts
of this case meet all the requirements for admissibility set forth in
the Regulations of the Commission.
2. That according
to the information provided by the Government of Peru, the
investigations of the disappearance of Mr. Jaime Ayala Sulca Huanta, a
newspaper correspondent of the journal "La República",
arrested on August 2, 1984, in Huanta, Ayacucho, have not had positive
results, in spite of the long time periods which have elapsed since
they were initiated (August 2, 1984) by the Public Prosecutor's
3. That, moreover,
during these investigations nothing whatsoever has resulted from the
hearing of the case by the Trial Court of Second Instance in Huamanga,
Ayacucho against the presumed guilty parties in this case, Mr. Alvaro
Artaza Adrianzén and Mr. Roman Martínez Heredia, and this is
inferred from the note dated May 6, 1985 (Nº 7-5-M/100)sent by the
Government of Peru to the Commission informing that it grants the
Provincial Prosecutor in Criminal Matters authority "for the most
extensive intervention and jurisdiction in the criminal proceedings
against the accused".
4. That, finally,
the Government of Peru provided limited information to the Commission,
two years after the events occurred, barely indicating that the matter
is still under investigation, the only progress being that the case
shall continue "in the civil courts and under the ad-hoc
examining magistrate of Huamanga", as stated in the note sent by
the Government of Peru on March 26, 1986 (Nº 7-5-M/44), p. 2).
5. That the
petitioner, in his comments and observations on the information
contained in the abovementioned note of March 26, 1986, has submitted
important and substantial evidence in view of which not only are the
facts of this case presumed to be true, but also that the presumed
guilty parties have not been brought to trial because their
whereabouts or status is unknown.
6. That in this
case it is not appropriate to wait until internal remedies are
exhausted, as requested by the Government of Peru (Note Nº 7-5-M/128
dated July 30, 1986), because since these events occurred,
sluggishness and lack of results in this investigation constitute an
obvious case of unjustified delay in the administration of justice
that, in fact, imply a denial of the same which would permit
clarification of the facts, all of which make completely applicable
the provisions of Article 37 paragraph 2 of the Commission's
7. Moreover, in
this case, by reason of the nature of the events, that is, the forced
disappearance of Mr. Jaime Ayala Sulca Huanta, the Commission has not
been able to apply the friendly settlement procedure provided for in
Article 48, paragraph 1, f of the American Convention on Human
Rights and in Article 45 of its Regulations.
8. That Article 42
of the Regulations authorizes the Commission to consider the facts
stated in the petition of this case to be true as long as other
evidence does not lead to a different conclusion.
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESOLVES:
1. To presume true
the facts reported in the communication of August 29, 1984, on the
arbitrary arrest and disappearance of the newspaper correspondent Mr.
Jaime Ayala Sulca Huanta, which took place in Huanta, Ayacucho on
August 2, 1984.
2. To declare that
these facts constitute an extremely serious violation of the right to
life (Art. 4); to personal integrity (Art. 5) and to personal liberty
(Art. 7), set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights.
3. To recommend to
the Government of Peru that it conclude, as fast as possible, the
investigations being carried out at the Trial Court of Huamanga, and,
in particular, that it proceed to bring to trial before the provincial
courts the presumed guilty parties in this case, Lieutenant Commander
Alvaro Artaza Adrianzén and Second Class Petty Officer A.P. Román
Martínez, in the provincial courts, in accordance with the decision
of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru in its ruling of January 24,
1986, and that the Commission be informed of the result of these
investigations or of the steps taken.
4. To recommend to
the Government of Peru that it punish the persons responsible with the
most severe penalties established in Peruvian law, and that, also, it
grant compensation to the victim's family members, according to the
5. To request the
Government of Peru to inform the Commission, within a period of 60
days, of the decision taken regarding these recommendations. If the
period established in numeral 3 of this Resolution has elapsed with no
observations presented by the Government of Peru, the Commission will
include this Resolution in its Annual Report to the General Assembly
of the OAS, as established in Article 63, g of its Regulations.
6. To transmit
this Resolution to the Government of Peru and to the petitioner.