16. On September 26 and October 1, 2007, the State submitted its observations in report No.
137-2007-JUS-SE/CESAPI, which was duly forwarded to the petitioner by the Commission,
with a one month period in which to lodge her observations.
17. On October 23, 30, and November 2, 2007, the Executive Secretariat of the Commission
received additional information submitted by the petitioner in the case, which was duly
transmitted to the State on November 6, 2007.
18. On January 4, 2008, the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR acknowledged receipt of a
request for precautionary measures on behalf of Mrs. Mónica Feria following her arrest in
Germany in accordance with a request from INTERPOL Lima for her extradition and future trial
in Peru. On January 7 and 9, 2008, the petitioner submitted additional information relating to
said trial.
III.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.
Petitioners
19. The petition states that from March to April 1992, Jesús Mónica Feria Tinta worked with an
international television company making a documentary in various areas of Peru. She says that
it was in this context when, on April 13, 1992 at 8.30 p.m., she was arrested while showing a
potential tenant a property belonging to her parents.
20. The petitioner indicates that her arrest was carried out by a group of heavily armed men
dressed as civilians, who belonged to the GEIN (Special Group of the State Security Forces
made up of members of the police and army). They allegedly forced their way into the
property where the petitioner was, broke the glass at the entranceway, grabbed her violently
by the hair and pointed a gun at her. She states that once the men had gained entry, both she
and the potential tenant were thrown to the floor and dragged to the other end of the room,
tied up, blindfolded and indecently searched. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was
subjected to sexual assault by a member of the GEIN who “inserted his fingers into her vagina”
while another officer held her by her legs on the floor. 1 The petitioner states that when she
voiced a complaint regarding the situation she was hit by the officer.
21. The petitioner indicates that it was under those circumstances that she was interrogated
about her participation in the television program she was working on. She then heard that she
was to be transferred to a military barracks. According to the allegation, this, along with the
fact that there was no prosecutor present, caused her to fear that she was about to be
disappeared. She states that after an extended period of time, a prosecutor arrived at her
place of detainment and, although he had not been present when the officers arrived at the
property, he accepted unquestioningly the information provided by the officers present. She
claims that her apartment was searched that same night without her presence or consent and
without the presence of a lawyer.
22. The petitioner states that she was prevented from communicating with anyone but her
captors and that she was transferred to a vehicle in which she remained blindfolded,
handcuffed, terrified and being threatened with torture and death by her captors, while they
spent the entirety of the night driving around the outskirts of Lima. She alleges that at around
6.00 am on April 14, 1992, she was taken to a building adjoining DINCOTE (National Terrorism
Headquarters) where she was forced to remain in a room with other detainees all day.
1 On December 23, 1997 the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR received a document from the petitioner in which she
asked for the English version of the petition to be accepted as the original version. Therefore, the above-mentioned
allegation was taken from the English version of the document lodged by the petitioner on June 17, 1997 which reads
as follows: “While petitioner was laying on the floor, bound and blindfolded, the man searched her, inserting his hands
underneath her clothes, touching her body and raping her, by inserting his fingers in her vagina, while another man
held her down by standing on her legs.”
3