Miguelita, Perseveranda, Vicente and Sabina, all of them Baldeón-Yllaconza
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.
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).”
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.
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.

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.

Select target paragraph3