2 I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION 1. On July 11, 2008 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the "Commission" or the "Inter-American Commission") submitted to the Court, under the terms of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, an application against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter, the “State” or “Peru") in relation to case Nº 11.385, originating in petition forwarded to the Secretariat of the Commission on May 27, 1994 by the Association for Human Rights (APRODEH). On October 16, 2007, the Commission adopted the Report on Admissibility and Merits N° 85/07, under the terms of Article 50 of the Convention, in which certain recommendations were made to the State.3 On July 10, 2008, the Commission decided to submit the instant case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, in accordance with Articles 51(1) of the Convention and 44 of its Rules of Procedure. The Commission designated Commissioner Paolo Carozza, member of the Commission, and Executive-Secretary Santiago A. Canton as its delegates in this case and Assistant Executive Secretary Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Norma Colledani and Lilly Ching, as legal advisors. 2. The facts presented by the Commission referred to the alleged forced disappearance of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro (hereinafter, “Mr. Anzualdo Castro") as of December 16, 1993, allegedly committed by members of the Army’s Intelligence Service (hereinafter, “SIE”) at the time of the events. It was alleged that on the day he was kidnapped or arrested, Mr. Anzualdo Castro would have been taken to the basement of the Army's headquarters, where he would have been possibly executed and his body incinerated at the incinerators installed in those basements. The Commission pointed out that the facts are framed within a “pattern of extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances and massacres attributed to State agents and groups linked to public security agencies”, favoring a pattern of impunity in the investigation and pursuit of this type of facts. 3. The Commission requested the Court to declare the State of Peru is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, as well as the violation of Article I of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter, the “ICFDP”), to the detriment of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro. Moreover, the Commission alleged that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, to the detriment of his next-of-kin, namely, Mr. Felix Vicente Anzualdo Vicuña, his father; Iris Isabel Castro Cachay de Anzualdo (deceased) his mother and his siblings, Marly Arleny Anzualdo Castro and 3 In the report on admissibility and merits, the Commission found the case admissible and ruled about its jurisdiction to hear the case; it also concluded that Peru “violated Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro’s right to recognition of juridical personality, to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, a fair trial and judicial protection, as enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the provisions of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the aforesaid international instrument and Article I of the Convention on Forced Disappearance. Furthermore, it concluded that the State is responsible for violation of the right to humane treatment, a fair trial and judicial protection of the victim’s next of kin as enshrined in Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention and in connection with the general obligation in Article 1(1) to respect and ensure and the duty to adopt legislative or other measures as set forth in Article 2 of the Convention.” Finally, the Commission made certain recommendations to the State.