49. The three petitions satisfy the formal requirements established in Article 46 of the
Convention for admissibility. The petitions were filed within the time frame stipulated in Article
46(b) of the Convention and Article 38 of the Commission's Regulations, and were filed with the
Commission within the 6-month period stipulated in the American Convention. It is worthwhile
noting that the victim was the last to file a petition, and he is now regarded as the principal
petitioner.
50. In keeping with Article 46(c) of the Convention and Article 39 of the Commission's
Regulations, in the Commission's knowledge the subject of this petition is not pending with any
other international body for settlement.
51. The Peruvian State raised a preliminary objection arguing the petitioner's failure to exhaust
the remedies under domestic law, pointing out that the facts in the instant case were being
litigated in several actions now before the domestic courts, which meant that the remedies under
domestic law had not been exhausted.
52. The petitioner argued that in the instant case, the exception allowed in Convention Article
46(2) to the rules requiring exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law applied because in
Peru there was no effective remedy to protect the violated rights or due process of law to ensure
the independence and impartiality that a court must have when hearing a case, which is a
violation of Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention. It was also alleged that there had been an
unwarranted delay in ruling on the remedies invoked, especially the ruling by the Provisional
Public Law Chamber in case No. 246-97, dated September 11, 1997; that case was the appeal
challenging the earlier decision that denied the precautionary measure sought in the action
seeking a writ of amparo against the decision that stripped Mr. Baruch Ivcher B. of his
nationality. That September 11 ruling vacated all proceedings conducted theretofore.
53. Thus far, seven months after the directorial resolution stripping Mr. Baruch Ivcher of his
nationality was issued, the victim has not yet obtained a final judgment settling his nationality
status once and for all. On three different occasions, the appellate court has nullified all
proceedings in his case and returned the case to the lower court, thus delaying and complicating
his case. At the same time, the very same court has already handed down definitive rulings on
the Winter brothers' cases, in their favor, thus taking away the victim's control of the
administration of the television channel through application of Directorial Resolution No. 11-97IN-050100000000. In other words, both the lower court and the appellate court have treated
Baruch Ivcher Bronstein as a de facto alien and declared him to be an alien.
54. Throughout the proceedings, especially at the hearing held at the 97th session, the State
failed to demonstrate that the Peruvian legal system had simple, efficient and effective remedies
for the victim's situation.
55. Mr. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein's present situation is extremely disturbing, as he appears to
have suffered virtually irreparable damage. While the Government maintains that he is an
undocumented Peruvian, the courts of first and second instance have handed over control of
Frecuencia Latina Canal 2 television to minority shareholders, even though Mr. Ivcher is its
majority shareholder and was its chairman. As these court rulings were premised on the fact
that Mr. Ivcher was not a Peruvian citizen and because, under the present law, no alien may own
a television channel, the channel's administration is no longer in Mr. Ivcher's hands.
56. As a consequence of the foregoing, even if Mr. Ivcher were to win the cases brought in the
domestic courts, the damages he has already sustained are of enormous magnitude and would
be very difficult to redress in full. These damages are aggravated day by day and require a
simple and effective remedy. For that reason, the Commission, without prejudging the facts but
applying the maxim that requires it to opt for the interpretation of the law that best protects
human rights, agreed to seek precautionary measures for Mr. Ivcher. These measures were
requested by letter dated July 30, 1997.
7