I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On January 4, 2012, under Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention and Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted the case of J. v. the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The case concerns the alleged “illegal and arbitrary detention of J. and the searches of her home on April 13, 1992, by State agents, who [presumably] committed acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, including the [alleged] rape of the [presumed] victim.” According to the Commission, “[t]hese acts were followed by the transfer of Ms. J. to the National Counter-terrorism Directorate (DINCOTE) and her [alleged] deprivation of liberty there for 17 days, without judicial oversight and in inhuman detention conditions,” as well as “by a series of [alleged] violations of due process and the principle of legality and non-retroactivity during the criminal proceedings against the [presumed] victim for supposed acts of terrorism while Decree-Law 25,475 was in force. Ms. J. was exonerated in June 1993, following which she left Peru.” According to the Commission, “[o]n December 27, 1993, the ‘faceless’ Supreme Court of Justice annulled the acquittal without explaining its reasons and ordered a new trial. At the present time, proceedings against Ms. J. remain pending in Peru, and an international warrant has been issued for her arrest.” 2. Proceedings before the Commission. The proceedings before the Commission were as follow: a) Petition. On June 17, 1997, Ms. J. and Curtis Francis Doebbler, acting as her 1 representative, lodged the initial petition. b) Admissibility Report. On March 14, 2008, the Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 27/08. 2 c) Merits Report. On July 20, 2011, the Commission approved Merits Report No. 76/11, 3 pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter also “the Merits Report”), in which it reached a series of conclusions and made several recommendations to the State: Conclusions. The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Ms. J. The Commission also concluded that Peru was responsible for the violation of the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “the Inter-American Convention against Torture”) and 7 of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter “the Convention of 1 “On June 29, 2000, the Commission, pursuant to Article 40(1) of its rules of procedure, decided to separate the file [of Ms. J.’s initial petition] into two new files, distinguished with [the letters A and B], and decided that, in file [A] it would thereafter process the part of the petition referring exclusively to the detention, trial and other facts denounced that concerned Ms. J. directly and personally.” In addition, the Commission decided that, thereafter, “file [B] would refer to the facts denounced in the petition that originated the case […] which related to the incidents that took place in the Castro Castro Prison, in Lima, in May 1992.” File B “was joindered [to another] case […] to be processed jointly, and was submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on August 13, 2004, and decided in a judgment of that Court in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison on November 25, 2006.” Merits Report No. 76/11, Case […]-A, J. v. Peru, July 20, 2011 (merits report, folios 7 and 8) 2 In this report, the Commission decided that the petition was admissible with regard to the presumed violations of “Articles 5, 7, 8, 9 11 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this international instrument,” and also in relation to “Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará.” Admissibility Report No. 27/08, Case […]-A [J.] v. Peru, March 14, 2008 (file of the proceedings before the Commission, folios 1023 to 1036). 3 Cf. Merits Report No. 76/11, Case […]-A, J. v. Peru, July 20, 2011 (merits report, folios 7 to 78). 4