2 Miguelita, Perseveranda, Vicente and Sabina, all of them Baldeón-Yllaconza (children). 2. Bernabé Baldeón-García was a 68 year-old peasant who lived together with his family and earned his living as a farmer in the Department of Ayacucho, Peru. On September 25, 1990, as a part of a counterinsurgent operation carried on in such Department, military forces reached the community where Baldeón-García lived and there, they allegedly proceeded to arrest three persons, including Baldeón-García. The alleged victim was taken to the Church of Pacchahuallhua, wherein he was allegedly mistreated, and “was tied up with wires and hung upside down to be subsequently whipped and submerged in water tanks,” and allegedly died as a consequence of such mistreatment. 3. The Commission argued that these events occurred within a context of “a recurrent pattern of violations of that kind arising at that time, more particularly, in the department in which the arrest and subsequent death of the [alleged] victim took place.” The Commission considered that “the case reflected the abuses committed by the military armed forces during a domestic conflict, in detriment of peasants living in the Peruvian mountain regions, as the Commission had pointed out since the early 90’s, and as more recently pointed out by the Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación del Perú (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru).” 4. Furthermore, the Commission submitted information to the Court about the alleged damage caused by the State to the alleged victim’s next of kin due to the alleged moral and psychological damages caused by the alleged detention and subsequent execution of Baldeón-García and by the lack of a complete, impartial and effective investigation of the facts. In that sense, the Commission alleged that the criminal proceedings had not been effective and had not been duly carried out. Furthermore, the Commission stated that fourteen years had elapsed since the occurrence of the events and the criminal action was still at its investigative stage, no formal charges were filed against any person whomsoever and nobody was punished so far, and further stated that the case was referred from one prosecutor to another, and this might presumably have caused “unreasonable delays” and turned the proceedings more difficult. 5. Likewise, the Commission requested the Inter-American Court to order the State, under Article 63(1) of the Convention, to adopt the specific reparation measures detailed in the application. Lastly, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to pay the costs and expenses arising from the processing of the case in the domestic courts and those arising from the proceedings under the InterAmerican System for the Protection of Human Rights. II COMPETENCE 6. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Articles 62 and 63(1) of the American Convention, given that Peru has been a State Party to the Convention since July 28, 1978 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981.