REPORT Nº 42/99
CASE 11.045
HUGO MUÑOZ SÁNCHEZ, BERTILA LOZANO TORRES, DORA OYAGUE FIERRO, LUIS ENRIQUE
ORTIZ PEREA, ARMANDO RICHARD AMARO CONDOR, ROBERT EDGAR TEODORO ESPINOZA,
HERÁCLIDES PABLO MEZA, FELIPE FLORES CHIPANA, MARCELINO ROSALES CÁRDENAS, AND
JUAN GABRIEL MARIÑOS FIGUEROA.
(LA CANTUTA)
Peru
March 11, 1999
I.

SUMMARY

1. In a petition submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter
"the Commission") by the nongovernmental human rights organization Asociación Pro
Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) on July 30, 1992, the Republic of Peru (hereinafter "Peru,"
"the State," or "the Peruvian State") was accused of violating the human rights of Hugo Muñoz
Sánchez, a professor at the Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University (located in La Cantuta,
Lima), and of Bertila Lozano Torres, Dora Oyague Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando
Richard Amaro Condor, Robert Edgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Felipe Flores
Chipana, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa, all students at that
same university, by abducting them from the university in the predawn hours of July 18, 1992,
an operation carried out by troops of the Peruvian army, and by proceeding to torture and
summarily execute them on that same date.
2. The petitioner claims that through these actions, the State violated the victims’ right to
personal liberty, right to humane treatment, right to life, right to a fair trial, and right to
judicial protection as enshrined in Articles 7, 5, 4, 8, and 25, respectively, of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the American Convention").
The State did not dispute the admissibility of the complaint.
3. The Commission has decided to admit the petition as regards question of the compatibility
of Amnesty Laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 with the American Convention, to postpone until its
review of the merits of the case its decision on admissibility as regards the alleged failure to
investigate and punish the instigators of the La Cantuta massacre, to proceed with a thorough
analysis of the incident, and to make itself available to the parties with a view to reaching a
friendly settlement based on respect for the human rights set forth in the Convention.
II.

PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

4. The petitioner presented the complaint on July 30, 1992. On August 4, 1992, the case was
opened and a request for information was sent to the Peruvian State. The State replied on
October 8, 1992. Both parties submitted additional documents on different occasions.
III.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.

The Petitioner’s Position

5. The petitioner claims that Mr. Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, an advisor and officer of the
National Intelligence Service, Gen. Julio Salazar Monroe, currently Minister of Defense and
then head of the National Intelligence Service (SIN), Gen. Juan Rivero Lazo, head of the Army
Intelligence Directorate, and Gen. Luis Pérez Documet, head of the Army’s Special Forces
Directorate (DIFE) met some months prior to July 18, 1992, to draw up and approve the
implementation of an operation called "Secuestro" [kidnap], intended to abduct and illegally
execute a group of individuals from the Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University (La
Cantuta). This plan was approved by Gen. Nicolás Hermoza Ríos.
6. According to the petitioner, it was also agreed that the abduction and subsequent massacre
would be carried out by a special operations group called "Colina," comprising members of the
SIE and of the DINTE, including Maj. Santiago Martín Rivas (aka "Kike"), Capt. Eliseo Carlos

1

Select target paragraph3