REPORT No. 67/11
CASE 11.157
ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS
GLADYS CAROL ESPINOZA GONZALES
PERU
March 31, 2011
I.
SUMMARY
1.
On May 10, 1993, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a complaint lodged by the
Association for Human Rights (APRODEH), Mrs. Teodora Gonzales Vda. de Espinoza, and the Center for
1
Justice and International Law (CEJIL) (hereinafter “the petitioners”), representing Gladys Carol Espinoza
2
Gonzales (hereinafter also “the alleged victim” in the analysis of admissibility and “the victim” in the
analysis of the merits), alleging the international responsibility of the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the
Peruvian State,” “the State,” or “Peru”). The petitioners claimed that Gladys Carol Espinoza was illegally
and arbitrarily arrested on April 17, 1993, and was tortured and sexually abused while held at the
premises of the Peruvian National Police in the city of Lima. They contended that those facts were never
investigated, in spite of complaints filed by the alleged victim’s family and civil society organizations in
early 1993, and by Gladys Carol Espinoza herself in the year 2003. Finally, they held that the Peruvian
State is responsible for violating the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in Articles 1,
6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and in Article 7 of the InterAmerican Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women.
2.
In turn, the State disputed that the alleged victim had suffered sexual abuse or torture
and said that if evidence of such actions had existed, the competent authorities would have begun a
criminal investigation. It held that the legal framework under which Gladys Carol Espinoza was detained
in April 1993 was substantially amended with the adoption of decree laws on matters of terrorism
between January and February 2003, which it claimed were in line with the American Convention and the
Constitution of Peru. Finally, it contended that the facts described by the petitioners did not tend to
establish violations of the Convention’s provisions and it requested that the IACHR declare the complaint
inadmissible under Article 47.b thereof.
3.
After analyzing the positions of the parties, the Commission concludes that it has
competence to hear the petition and that it satisfies the admissibility requirements set out in Articles 46
and 47 of the American Convention. In addition, it concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for
violating the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 11, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction
with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring rights set forth in Article 1.1 thereof, and the rights
contained in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and
Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence
against Women.
II.
PROCESSING BY THE IACHR
4.
The petition was received on May 10, 1993, and assigned the number 11.157; it was
conveyed to the State on May 12, 1993, with a deadline of 90 days for a response to be returned,
1
2
The Center for Justice and International Law registered as a co-petitioner on November 19, 2008.
The submissions sent to the IACHR by the petitioners and the State refer to the alleged victim by the names Gladys
Carol Espinoza Gonzales, Gladis Carol Espinoza Gonzales, and Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles. Copes of the case files from the
criminal proceedings brought against the alleged victim refer to her both by the name Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzales and by the
pseudonym Victoria Romero Salazar.