SEEN the background information on this case, viz:
1. In a
communication dated September 4, 1984 the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights received the following complaint:
July 24, 1984 eighteen-year old JUAN DARIO CUYA LAINE was arrested at
his home, in the Province of Ayacucho, by members of the army and the
police. His mother has stated that she saw him on July 30, 1984 when
visiting him at the Quicapata barracks. At that time he presented
visible signs of torture. Since then his whereabouts are unknown. The
officials at Quicapata, where he had been detained, now deny his arrest.
According to information received the facilities at Quicapata used to be
a school. We fear for the life and integrity of Juan Darío in view of
the recent well known events in Ayacucho. All internal remedies have
been exhausted. We urgently request the IACHR to press the Government of
Peru to acknowledge the arrest of Mr. Cuya, determine his whereabouts
and guarantee his safety.
2. In a cablegram
dated September 5, 1984 the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts
of the claim 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 on September 10, 1984.
3. In a note dated
December 10, 1984 (Nº 7-5-M/43), the Government of Peru replied to the
Commission as follows:
on the instructions of its Government, the Permanent Mission of Peru
informs the Honorable Executive Secretariat that the Ministry of the
Interior has reported that the Peruvian citizen, Mr. Juan Darío Cuya
Laine, has not been intervened nor arrested by the Forces of Law and
Order in the Emergency Zone. Moreover, it is noted that this citizen has
no social-political record in the registers of the Peruvian police; and
that his present whereabouts are unknown, in spite of efforts to locate
him made according to the request of the Inter-American Commission on
4. In a letter
dated January 30, 1985, the Commission made known the pertinent parts of
the above-mentioned information to the petitioner, requesting that he
send his observations within a period of 45 days; this request was
reiterated in a letter dated May 1st 1986 pointing out that
should it not receive any information within a period of 60 days, the
Commission would discontinue processing the case.
5. In his
communication of May 14, 1986, the petitioner sent additional
information and observations on the case, as follows:
its note of December 10, 1984 the Peruvian Government states that JUAN
DARIO CUYA LAINE was not arrested by the security forces operating in
the state of emergency zone and that he does not have a police record.
The Government adds that, in spite of all efforts to locate him, his
whereabouts are still unknown.
consider there to be an important discrepancy between the information
provided by the Government and the two declarations sworn to before the
District Attorney at Ayacucho, copies of which we are sending to the
June 25, 1984 the witness stated in a sworn statement that on June 24,
1984, and after having searched his home around 6 a.m., Juan Darío was
arrested by a group of 15 Army officials. Also, the witness stated he
believed Juan Dario had been taken to the "Los Cabitos"
barracks and requested that he be released or transferred to the
Investigations Police of Peru (PIP).
August 31, 1984 the witness stated in a new affidavit that he had
learned that Juan Darío had been in police custody in a building known
as "Casa Rosada" and that later he had been transferred to the
army barracks at Quiscapata. The witness said he visited him at that
facility on July 30, 1984 and verified that the prisoner was vomiting
blood. The witness also stated that at Quiscapata he was promised Juan
Darío would be released 15 days later but in fact he was never seen
again. He said he later heard that Juan Darío was at the "Casa
Rosada", then at "Los Cabitos" and he asked the District
Attorney to look into said facilities.
6. In its
communications of May 22 and 28, 1986 the Commission transmitted the
pertinent parts of the observations and new information sent by the
petitioner to the Government of Peru and set a period of 30 days for
this Government to furnish information on the case.
7. In its
communication of May 22, the Commission informed the petitioner of the
1. That this case
meets all the admissibility requirements set forth in the Commission's
2. That the
Government of Peru has not replied to the last request for information
by the Commission dated May 22, 1986.
3. That the
information provided by the Government of Peru in its note of December
10, 1984, denying the arrest of Mr. Juan Darío Cuya Laine by security
forces, contradicts the testimony given under oath by Mr. Cuya Laine's
mother before the ad-hoc District Attorney of Ayacucho, on June 25,
1984, which is on file and states that on June 24, 1984, at
approximately 6 a.m., some fifteen (15) heavily armed army officials,
having searched the deponent's home, arrested Mr. Cuya Laine and took
him, according to this testimony, to the barracks called "BIM 51,
Los Cabitos", in the city of Ayacucho.
4. That, also, in
a later testimony given on August 31, 1984 by Mrs. Laine, she stated
that she had been informed, by "non official" channels, that
her son was detained in a place called "Casa Rosada", and was
then transferred to the Quiscapata barracks where she visited him and
saw him "vomit blood". According to the deponent she was
promised that her son would be freed in 15 days but since then she has
no knowledge of his whereabouts or situation.
5. That, finally,
the deponent declared that she had received information indicating that
her son had been taken again to "Los Cabitos" barracks, having
requested the District Attorney to visit this place in order to verify
the presence and condition of her son, since she was unable to resort to
any other legal remedies in order to verify the whereabouts and
condition of her son.
6. That in view of
the facts on file, those provided by the petitioner as well as those
presented by the afore- mentioned Government, it is affirmed that the
facts claimed are considered to be true and that, consequently, Mr. Juan
Dario Cuya Laine was arbitrarily arrested by agents of the Government of
Peru and kept in illegal detention facilities, that is, in military
barracks or facilities, until his disappearance which, by his own
mother's testimony, must have occurred between the end of July and the
beginning of August, 1984.
7. That in this
case the petitioners exhausted the internal remedies available to them
upon requesting the Ayacucho District Attorney to verify the presence
and status of Mr. Juan Darío Cuya Laine, and that the judicial
authorities, not having complied with the requested action nor initiated
preliminary proceedings to clarify the facts, constituted an act of
denial of justice, and whereby the Commission shall not apply the
provisions established in Article 37, paragraph 1 of its Regulations.
furthermore, in the case that is the subject matter of this resolution,
the Commission has not been able, by reason of the nature of the
petition, that is, the forced disappearance of Mr. Juan Darío Cuya
Laine, 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.
9. That in
accordance with the provisions set forth in Article 42 (formerly 39) of
the Regulations the Commission will presume to be true the facts stated
in the petition, as long as other evidence does not lead to a different
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESOLVES:
1. To presume true
the facts claimed in the communication dated September 5, 1984 regarding
the arbitrary arrest and disappearance of Mr. Juan Darío Cuya Laine, in
Ayacucho, on June 24, 1984.
2. To point out to
the Government of Peru that such events constitute very serious
violations 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
3. To recommend to
the Government of Peru that, in the shortest time possible, it order a
complete investigation of the facts denounced so as to clarify events,
determine the agents responsible for Mr. Cuya Laine's disappearance and
to punish them.
4. To state that
the relatives of Mr. Juan Darío Cuya Laine deserve a just compensation,
according to law, and that, therefore, it is the responsibility of the
Government of Peru to provide such compensation.
5. To request the
Government of Peru to inform the Commission, within 60 days, on measures
taken to implement the recommendations set forth in this resolution; and
if after that period the Government of Peru has not submitted any
observations, the Commission will include this Resolution in its Annual
Report to the General Assembly of the OAS, in accordance with Article 63
g, of the Commission's Regulations.
6. To transmit the text of this Resolution to the Government of Peru and the petitioner.