REPORT Nº 27/08
March 14, 2008


1. On June 17, 1997, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Commission,” “the American Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Dr.
Curtis Francis Doebbler, representing Mrs. Jesús Mónica Feria Tinta (hereinafter “the alleged
victim” or “the petitioner”) alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the
State,” “the Peruvian State,” or “Peru”) for human rights violations experienced by the
petitioner when she was arrested, tried for the crime of terrorism in 1992, and then re-tried
after having been found not guilty. At the time the present report was drawn up, the alleged
victim had assumed responsibility for her own representation before the IACHR.
2. The petitioner alleges that the State is responsible for violating the rights protected in
Articles 4 (Life), 5 (Humane Treatment), 7 (Personal Liberty), 8 (Fair Trial), 9 (Freedom from
Ex Post Facto Laws), 11 (Privacy), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 14 (Reply), and
25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Convention”, or “the American Convention) in relation to the general obligation to respect and
protect as defined in Article 1.1 of the above mentioned international instrument. She also
argues that the petition is admissible because it is exempt from the admissibility requirement
of prior exhaustion of remedies under domestic law, in accordance with Article 46.2 of the
Convention, as Peruvian terrorism legislation does not afford due process of law.
3. The State, for its part requests that the Commission declare the present petition
inadmissible by application of Article 46 of the American Convention, as the petitioner has not
pursued and exhausted remedies under domestic law. Furthermore, the State maintains that
at the time the petition was lodged the period allowed for the presentation of a petition before
the IACHR had expired with “reasonable margin”, when considering the date of the alleged
violation or, “in any case, since the alleged victim was notified of the decision regarding the
reopening of criminal proceedings against her.”
4. Having examined the information available, the Commission declared the petition admissible
in relation to the alleged violation of the rights protected in Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 25 of
the American Convention in line with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the above mentioned international
instrument, and inadmissible in relation to the alleged violation of Articles 4, 13, and 14 of the
same international instrument. Furthermore, the IACHR declared that it was competent to
examine at the merits stage the alleged violations of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American
Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; and the alleged violations of the rights enshrined in
Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of
Violence Against Women (the Convention of Belém do Pará) (hereinafter “Convention of Belém
do Pará”) in accordance with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American
Convention, and decided to notify the parties and to include it in its Annual Report.


5. The Commission registered the petition on June 5, 1997. It was received at the Executive
Secretariat on June 17, 1997, as case number 11.769, and on July 8, 1997 the Commission
proceeded to forward the relevant parts to the State, granting a period of 90 days to provide
information on the allegations, in accordance with Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure of the
IACHR, in force at that time.


Select target paragraph3