2 Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the American Convention") and Articles 26 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the Court that were then in force. (1) The Commission submitted this case for a ruling by the Court as to whether, with the alleged "abduction and subsequent disappearance of Ernest Rafael Castillo-Páez by the Peruvian Police in violation of the Convention", the Government had violated the following articles of the Convention: 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 4 (Right to Life), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), all these in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. Additionally, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to conduct "the investigations needed to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible" for that disappearance, to report on the Mr. Castillo-Páez's whereabouts, and to locate his remains and deliver them up to his next-of-kin. It further requested the Court to declare that the State must "pay full material and moral damages to Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez' next-ofkin for the grievous suffering they have endured as a result" of the events and that it must "compensate Dr. Augusto Zúñiga-Paz for the material and moral damages he has sustained [in the attempt on his life] for his defense of young Castillo-Páez." Lastly, it requested the Court to order the State to pay the costs of these proceedings. II 2. The Court is competent to hear the instant Case. Peru ratified the Convention on July 28, 1978, and recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. III 3. On November 16, 1990, the Commission received a complaint concerning the abduction and subsequent disappearance of Ernest Rafael Castillo-Páez and three days later it sought information from the State as to the victim's whereabouts. Through communications of November 25 and 28, 1990, and March 19, 1991, the Commission reiterated its request. On May 28 and 29, 1991, the petitioners provided the Commission with additional information which was transmitted to the State on June 26, 1991. That information included a request for the adoption of measures designed to guarantee the safety of eye-witnesses to the events and of Mr. Castillo-Páez's father, Mr. Cronwell Pierre Castillo-Castillo. 4. On October 3, 1991, the State replied to the Commission's requests and declared that "there [was] no evidence to indicate that on October 21, 1990, members of the PNP-PG detained Rafael Castillo-Páez, as stated in the conclusion of Report No. 159-90-IGPNP-01, dated November 21, 1990." As regards the measures for the protection of a number of witnesses, in a note of January 6, 1992, the State informed the Commission that "the Villa El Salvador District Precinct Station [was] providing the necessary guarantees to protect the life and physical integrity" of the aforesaid persons. 5. On August 10, 1992, the petitioners supplied the Commission with additional information, and on September 11 of that year they submitted their comments on the State's reply, which were transmitted to the State on September 24. 6. On December 18, 1992, Peru dispatched official communiqué No. 033-92-P-CS from the Supreme Court of the Republic, containing the judgment handed down by that Tribunal's Second Criminal Chamber on February 7, 1991, which, according to the (1) Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its XXIII Regular Session held from January 9 to 18, 1991, amended on January 25, 1993, and July 16, 1993.

Select target paragraph3