REPORT Nº 27/08 PETITION 11.769-A ADMISSIBILITY JESUS MONICA FERIA TINTA PERU March 14, 2008 I. SUMMARY 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. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 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. 1