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