7. The State submitted its response on June 15, 2009, and sent the respective annexes on
June 23 of that year. Those documents were sent to the petitioners on June 29, 2009.
Subsequent to that date, additional communications were received from the petitioners on
August 11, September 10 and 25 and November 30, 2009. The State submitted additional
communications on September 14 and December 31, 2009.
III.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The petitioners
8. The petitioners alleged that on July 7, 1984, Rigoberto Tenorio Roca, a noncommissioned
officer in the Peruvian Army, was detained by Navy infantrymen as he was traveling between
the provinces of Huanta and Huamanga in the department of Ayacucho. They maintained that
as it was passing through the Huayhuas sector, the bus he was traveling in was stopped by
some 30 Navy infantrymen, accompanied by officers with the Peruvian Investigative Police.
The Marines and the Police entered the bus and searched those on board. The petitioners
maintained that when he showed his documents, the alleged victim was taken to a troop
transport vehicle that was part of a military convoy patrolling the area. They added that the
alleged victim was taken to the Huanta Stadium, where the Marines had set up a military
garrison.
9. According to the petitioners, Rigoberto Tenorio’s wife, Mrs. Cipriana Huamaní Anampa, and
dozens of other people witnessed Rigoberto Tenorio Roca’s detention by Navy infantry. They
stated that the Huanta Deputy Provincial Prosecutor, Simón Palomino Vargas, an examining
magistrate from the same province and his secretary were in one of the vehicles in the military
convoy and also witnessed the alleged victim’s detention.
10. The petitioners maintained that some days after the detention of Mr. Tenorio Roca, his wife
Huamaní Anampa filed a complaint with the Huanta Provincial Prosecutor, who reportedly told
her that he could not intervene “because they had already threatened him.”2 They stated that
the alleged victim’s detention was reported to the commandant of an Army base in Huamanga
province who, they claimed, received information from the commandant of the Navy Marine
base set up in Huanta Stadium, Captain Álvaro Francisco Separio Artaza Adrianzén (alias “the
truck”), to the effect that Rigoberto Tenorio had in fact been detained “for a small
investigation.” They claimed, however, that the militaries stationed at the Navy Marine base in
Huanta told Mrs. Huamaní Anampa that her husband had never been taken to that base.
11. The petitioners attached copies of complaints signed by the alleged victim’s brother, Mr.
Juan Tenorio Roca, and addressed to the Chairman of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces
and to the Attorney General of the Nation, dated August 24 and October 14, 1984,
respectively. The petition also indicates that the alleged victim’s wife, Mrs. Cipriana Huamaní
Anampa, filed a petition of habeas corpus and numerous complaints with different agencies of
the Judicial Branch, the Ministry of the Interior and the Congress of the Republic, but received
no answer.3
12. As for the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies, the petitioners maintained that two
criminal inquiries had been instituted against Navy Captain Alvaro Artaza Adrianzén in the
ordinary jurisdiction, but that the courts of ordinary jurisdiction declined the cases to the
military justice system. The petitioners stated that on December 23, 1985, the Deputy
Provincial Prosecutor of the Huanta Public Prosecutor’s Office filed formal charges against Navy
Captain Álvaro Artaza Adrianzén for the alleged criminal abduction of noncommissioned Army
officer Rigoberto Tenorio Roca and civilian Juan Medina Garay. This case file was classified as
number 01-86. The petitioners maintained that on January 3, 1986, the Huanta Examining
Magistrate ordered that proceedings be instituted against Captain Álvaro Artaza Adrianzén.
They maintained that the case was referred to the military courts and was ultimately filed, as
2 Communication received from the petitioners on February 1, 2007, p. 2.
3 The petitioners did not specify with which authorities the complaints and the petition of habeas corpus were filed and
on what dates.
2