SEEN the background information on this case, viz:
1. In a
communication dated October 1, 1984 the Commission received the
HUANCAHUARI disappeared on December 12, 1983 from Lucanamarca, the town
where he resided in Ayacucho. Captain Edgar Acevedo López, of the
district of Lucanamarca, reported to the authorities that Teodoro was
detained at the army facilities in Cangallo. Actions taken by his family
and local authorities have had no result. To date his location is
unknown. These facts constitute a violation of the American Convention
on Human Rights, of which Peru is a member State.
2. In its note of
November 5, 1984 the Commission requested the Government of Peru to
provide pertinent information on the petition, in accordance with
Article 34 (formerly 31) of its Regulations.
3. In its note of
March 6, 1985 (Nº 7-5-M/37), the Government of Peru replied to the
Commission with the following information:
reference to Case 9466, concerning Teodoro Huancahuari, on May 6, 1983
he was accused of heading the clandestine Sendero Luminoso guerrilla
group in the town of Pelacucho, Huancayo, and concealing his
participation in subversive activities through his post as Mayor of the
district of Lucanamarca, Ayacucho.
4. In its
communication of March 19, 1985, the Commission transmitted the
information provided by the Government of Peru to the petitioner,
requesting that he comment on it within a period of 45 days.
5. In his
communication of May 3, 1985 the petitioner made the following comments:
Nº 9466: Teodoro Huancahuari Matias:
Government of Peru's reply on the case of Mr. Huancahuari is completely
inadequate. It is affirmed without evidence or analysis that Mr.
Huancahuari was accused, on May 6 of 1983, of being the head of the
Sendero Luminoso guerrilla group in the city of Pelacucho, Huancayo, and
participating in subversive activities as Mayor of Lucamarca, District
of Ayacucho. This "reply" from the Government of Peru does not
actually respond to the petition we submitted to the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights.
October 1, 1984, we submitted a copy of the sworn statement made by Mr.
Huancahuari's wife, Vicenta Evanan Huancahuari. This statement, dated
February 14, 1984, was first made and presented to the Public
Prosecutor's office, the Superior District Attorney's office in
Ayacucho. This document basically states that Mr. Huancahuari
disappeared during the month of December, 1983, by action of civil or
military authorities of the Government of Peru and that repeated formal
and informal actions before these authorities have not resulted in
information on the whereabouts and condition of Mr. Huancahuari.
Government of Peru's "reply" does not refer to any of the
events denounced in the sworn statement submitted to the Commission. On
the contrary, it refers to the tendencious accusation, made in May of
1983, against Mr. Huancahuari. Likewise, no information is provided
regarding which court or which authorized official made the accusation;
the charges against Mr. Huancahuari are not stated, and curiously
enough, there is no transcript of the charges, which was apparently
submitted to the IACHR.
important of all, the Peruvian Government's reply does not mention the
events of December 1983 and January 1984 as claimed in the sworn
statement. Supposedly, in a case concerning an individual accused of
participating in "subversive activities" and arrested by
public officials, the Government would mention these facts in its reply.
Contrary to the above, the sworn statement contends that Mr. Huancahuari
was free before he went to the offices of Investigations Police of
Cangallo on December 7, 1983, to make a statement on a different matter.
This took place seven months after Mr. Huancahuari was accused.
the sworn statement is true then it is unlikely that the slanted
accusation made by the Government of Peru would have occurred. Clearly,
the Peruvian Government's reply is inadmissible: "In response to
the claim based on the fact that Mr. Huancahuari disappeared in 1983 by
action of the civil or military officials of Peru, the Government of
Peru affirms that Mr. Huancahuari was charged, in May of 1983, by an
unidentified official and of unspecified crimes." This response is
irrelevant and unrelated to the claim submitted to the Commission.
minimal response by the Government of Peru would have discussed the
facts set forth in the sworn statement and indicated Mr. Huancahuari's
response would have allowed the Commission to make a substantive study
of Mr. Huancahuari's case, with the aim of affirming that the rights
guaranteed in the American Convention on Human Rights are being
respected by the Government of Peru.
6. In its note of
May 8, 1985 the Commission transmitted the comments made by the
petitioner to the Government of Peru granting it a period of 30 days in
which to provide pertinent information. In a note of May 9, 1985 the
petitioner was advised on this action.
7. In a memorandum
dated June 28, 1985, the petitioner referred to having exhausted
internal remedies and the applicability exceptions of this principle,
recognized in Article 46, 2, a and b of the American
Convention as also in the Regulations of the Commission (Article 37, 2, a
and b and c), and pointed out that in the present case the
interested parties had exhausted internal remedies or the actions taken
had not been effective or the interested parties had been denied such
actions. In said memorandum, moreover, the petitioner submitted
additional information on the claim and the status of the investigations
requested by the victim's relatives.
8. In a note dated
September 25, 1985 (Nº 7-5-M/176), the Government of Peru reported that
" with reference to the specific cases submitted to the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Government of Peru had
ordered all the public offices involved in the claims to submit a
complete report on the facts contained in the claims on alleged
violations of human rights, which will be transmitted immediately to
that Honorable Executive Secretariat".
9. In accordance
with the above, in a note dated March 26, 1986 (Nº 7-5-M/44), said
Government submitted the following information on case 9466:
case 9466 we reiterate the fact that Mr. Teodoro Huancahuari was accused
of acting as head of the Sendero Luminoso guerilla group in the town of
In its letter of April 16, 1986, the Commission transmitted the
information provided by the Government of Peru to the petitioner
requesting he submit his observations or comments within a period of 45
In a communication dated May 30, 1986, the petitioner submitted
observations and comments along with additional information, as follows:
Nº 9466 Teodoro Huancahuari Matías
reply of the Government of Peru in the case of Mr. Huancahuari is the
same previous reply of March 6, 1983. As stated in our letter of May 3,
1985, the Government's reply is absolutely inadequate since it
determines, without any evidence or further detail, that Mr. Huancahuari
was prosecuted because he was the leader of the clandestine Sendero
Luminoso group in the city of Huancayo. This reply by the Government of
Peru does not actually respond to the information submitted to IACHR or
to the questions contained in our note of May 3, 1985.
October 1, 1984 we submitted to the IACHR a sworn statement made by Mr.
Huancahuari's wife, Vicenta Evanan Huancahuari. Originally that
statement made on February 14, 1984, was submitted to the Public
Prosecutor's office, the Superior Court of Ayacucho. Basically the
statement alleges that Mr. Huancahuari was "disappeared" by
military and/or civilian officials of the Government of Peru during the
month of December, 1983, and that repeated actions, both formal and
informal before the authorities, did not result in information on the
whereabouts or condition of Mr. Huancahuari.
to the present is a sworn statement dated June 7, 1985, signed by Mr.
Huancahuari's sons, that clearly shows that to date they have no
knowledge whatsoever of his whereabouts.
its response, the Government of Peru does not mention any of the alleged
events in the statement submitted to the IACHR, and instead reports Mr.
Huancahuari's prosecution. No information is provided as to which court
or public official took those actions; the exact charges against Mr.
Huancahuari are not specified, and curiously enough, apparently the
IACHR was not sent transcripts of this action. We requested this
information in our note of May 3, 1985, and the Government has
apparently been unable to provide it.
important of all is the fact that the Government's reply does not refer
to the events which occurred in December 1983 and January 1984 in the
complaint. Presumably, an individual processed for participating in
"subversive activities" would have been arrested and detained
by Government officials, but in the Government's reply it is not said
that Mr. Huancahuari was free when he himself appeared before the
Investigations Police of Cangallo on December 7, 1983, to make a
statement on another matter. This took place seven months after Mr.
Huancahuari's processing. If this statement is true, then it seems
incredible that the Government of Peru should actually have convicted
him. The reply given by the Government of Peru is obviously
insufficient. In response to claims containing detailed data whereby Mr.
Huancahuari disappeared in December of 1983 by action of civilian and/or
military officials of Peru, the Government states he was convicted by
unspecified officials and for unspecified crimes. The response is
irrelevant to the complaint submitted to the IACHR.
a minimal and adequate response from the Government of Peru, the facts
declared in the statement could be discussed and Mr. Huancahuari's
whereabouts indicated. This kind of response would allow the IACHR to
initiate study of Mr. Huancahuari's case in a constructive manner, with
the aim of assuring that the rights guaranteed by the American
Convention on Human Rights be respected by the Government of Peru. The
Government's second response, of March 26, 1986, does not meet any of
In its note of June 10, 1986, the Commission transmitted the
above comments to the Government of Peru, requesting it submit the
pertinent information on the case within a period of 30 days. This
request was reiterated in a note dated July 25, 1986 whereby it was
indicated that the above-mentioned time limit of 30 days had expired.
1. That this case
meets all the admissibility requirements set forth in the Regulations of
2. That the action
and the established time limits have expired before the Commission.
3. That the
information submitted by the Government of Peru in the present case of
Mr. Teodoro Huancahuari, disappeared since December 12, 1983, in
Lucanasmarca, Ayacucho, is insufficient, since it does not answer the
Commission's request concerning the whereabouts or status of Mr.
4. That in the
responses made by the Government of Peru, which did not include copies
of the files or corroborating evidence of its statements, it affirms
that the afore-mentioned "was charged on May 6, 1983, with being
the leader of the clandestine Sendero Luminoso group in the town of
Pelacucho, Huancayo, and concealing his participation in subversive
activities through his post as Mayor of the District of Lucanamarca,
Ayacucho," which is, moreover, irrelevant to the contents of the
claim submitted to the Commission.
5. That, moreover,
the information submitted by the Government of Peru does not recognize
or consider the sworn statement made by the victim's wife, Mrs. Vicenta
Evanan Huancahuari, on February 14, 1984, submitted to the Public
Prosecutor's office, the Superior District Attorney's office of
Ayacucho, whereby it is declared that Mr. Huancahuari disappeared
through the action of members of the armed forces or civilian government
officials during the month of December of 1983, and that all efforts to
determine the location of her husband have failed.
6. That, moreover,
there is on file a statement dated July 7, 1985, subscribed to by Mr.
Huancahuari's sons which declares they do not know the whereabouts of
their father and that, having checked at the Cangallo barracks, where
they were first told he could be found by Captain Edgar Acevedo López,
they have not received any reply on the matter.
7. That the
information provided by the Government of Peru does not furnish any
information on the court or judge that processed Mr. Huancahuari; nor
what specific charges were brought up, nor transcript of the sentence,
date or place in which the mentioned prosecution apparently took place.
consequently, the Commission lacks sufficient data to detract from the
claim and that, on the contrary, from the evidence on record the events
denounced before the Commission are presumed true.
9. That in the
case under consideration, the petitioners have exhausted all domestic
legal remedies, that is, a petition or statement to the Public
Prosecutor's office, on February, 1984--an autonomous body created by
the National Constitution (Article 250) to investigate attempts made on
the rights of the persons mentioned in the petitions submitted to this
body--and the records show that other remedies such as that of Habeas
Corpus, have not been available to the petitioners.
That, moreover, 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. Teodoro
Huancahuari, 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.
That Article 42 (formerly 39) of the Regulations authorizes the
Commission to presume true the facts contained in the petition 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 denounced in the communication of October 1, 1984, concerning
the disappearance of Mr. Teodoro Huancahuari Matías, on December 12,
1983 in the location called Lucanamarca, Ayacucho.
2. To declare this
constitutes a very serious violation of the right to personal liberty
(Article 7) and of the right to life (Article 4) set forth in the
American Convention on Human Rights.
3. To recommend to
the Government of Peru that it proceed, as soon as possible, with an
investigation of the case and punish the responsible agents for the
disappearance of Mr. Huancahuarti Matias with the most severe penalties.
4. To declare that
the relatives of the victim are entitled to fair compensation, in
accordance with the law, and for which the Government of Peru is
5. To request the
Government of Peru to inform the Commission, within a period of 60 days,
of the measures taken to implement the recommendations set forth in this
Resolution. If after this period the Government does not report on the
measures taken, the Commission will include this Resolution in its
Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS, in accordance with
Article 63, paragraph g of its Regulations.
6. To transmit this Resolution to the Government of Peru and the petitioner.