REPORT Nº 84/08
PETITION 40-03
ADMISSIBILITY
BLAS VALENCIA CAMPOS ET AL.
BOLIVIA
October 30, 2008
I.

SUMMARY

1.
On January 8, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (hereinafter also “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the
IACHR”) received a petition from Mr. Arturo Rodríguez Tapia (hereinafter also “the
petitioner”) on behalf of 26 persons1 (hereinafter also “the alleged victims”), in which
the Republic of Bolivia (hereinafter also “Bolivia,” “the State,” or “the Bolivian State”)
is alleged to have violated the rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human
Rights2 (hereinafter also “the American Convention,” “the Convention,” or the
“ACHR”), the rights protected in Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 of the Inter-American
Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and the rights enshrined in Articles 2, 3,
4, and 7 a) and b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment
and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter also “the Convention of
Belém do Pará”). The petitioner indicated that in the early morning hours of
December 18, 2001, a police operation was carried out involving violent raids on the
residences of the alleged victims, who were savagely beaten after having been
subjugated and handcuffed. He stated that the alleged victims included some
children, and that women were also beaten and forced to strip naked on several
occasions, and that several of them were victims of sexual violence on the part of
policemen. The petitioner added that the acts of torture continued at Judicial
Technical Police stations, where those arrested were held in solitary confinement for
three months and were forced to incriminate themselves without due guarantees. In
terms of domestic remedies, the petitioner stated that the alleged victims were
unable to exhaust judicial remedies due to threats by police officers and due to being
held in solitary confinement for three months.
2.
For its part, the State of Bolivia argued that the alleged victims are
part of an organized criminal group and that the use of force in their capture was
reasonable and necessary, and had to do with the high degree of danger posed by
those who were arrested. The State also stressed that the defendants’ judicial
guarantees were respected throughout the criminal proceedings and that currently
the individuals are serving their sentences. In terms of admissibility requirements,
the State contended that domestic remedies were not exhausted, because when the
petition was filed the criminal proceedings still had not yet culminated; moreover,
1 Blas Valencia Campos; Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia; Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia;
Mauricio Valenzuela Valencia (age 15); Álvaro Taboada Valencia; Claudia Valencia Alarcón;
Carlos Eladio Cruz Añez; Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz; María Fernanda Peña Gallardo
(deceased); Freddy Cáceres Castro; Oswaldo Lulleman Antezana; Raúl Oswaldo Lulleman
Gutiérrez; Victoria Gutiérrez de Lulleman; Paola Lulleman de Zaconeta; Luís F. Lulleman
Gutiérrez; Julia Mamani Mamani; Genaro Ahuacho Luna (Walter Herrera Flores - deceased);
Carlos Enrique Castro Ramírez; Alfredo Bazán La Rosas (José Miguel Abildo Díaz); Víctor
Manuel Boggiano Bruzon (Juan Ramírez Ortega); Elacio Peña Córdoba; Francis Elida Pimentela
Merino; Edwin Rodríguez Alarcón; Gabriel Valencia Alarcón; Alexis Valencia Alarcón (age 12);
Claudio Valencia (age 3). The petitioner does not explain the reason for the double identity of
five of the alleged victims. The annexes provided by the State also show double identities for
some of the alleged victims. It was not possible to determine which of the identities was real.
The Commission will analize the admissibility of the petition with regard to 26 persons,
including the three that both the petitioners and the State have identified with two names.
2 The petitioner does not specify the articles of the American Convention he considers to have
been violated.

1

Select target paragraph3