the preliminary phase in the Public Prosecutor’s Office. They observed that the Peruvian Congress’ adoption of amnesty laws (Laws 26479 and 26492) had the effect of obstructing efforts to solve the case and prosecute the military alleged to be involved. Finally, they added that while thus far those directly or immediately responsible for the disappearance of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca have not been prosecuted, both the Peruvian Public Prosecutor’s Office and Peru’s Judicial Branch were said to have attributed the event to agents of the State. B. The State 18. The State alleged that in the period between the filing of the petition and the start of processing, the Peruvian authorities had taken steps to solve the case and punish those responsible. 19. The State’s narration of the measures taken by the next of kin of Mr. Rigoberto Tenorio Roca to establish his whereabouts was similar to that of the petitioners. It stated that the alleged victim’s brother and wife filed complaints with the Public Prosecutor’s Office on July 9, 16, 18, 21, 23 and 30, August 27 and October 12, 1984. It affixed copies of a portion of the court record of the proceedings conducted in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction and in the military justice system into the disappearance of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca, and the investigations into the discovery of 50 bodies in the community of Pucayacu on August 22, 1984. Proceedings on the complaints filed by the next of kin of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca (record of the case in ordinary jurisdiction No. 1-86, and in military jurisdiction No. 3186-524-86) 20. In the case of the complaint that the Huanta Deputy Provincial Prosecutor filed on December 23, 1985, against Frigate Captain Álvaro Artaza Adrianzén for the criminal abduction of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca and Juan Medina Garay (Case No. 1-86), the State described the steps taken prior to bringing the case. It stated that while this trial was underway, the Permanent Council of the Peruvian Air Force had instituted an inquiry against the Marine officer for abuse of authority, whereupon case file No. 3186-524-86 was opened. 21. According to the State, on August 18, 1986, the Permanent Council of the Peruvian Air Force filed a motion claiming a conflict of competence, which it repeated on December 27, 1989. The State claimed that the military authority had asked the Huanta Examining Magistrate not to pursue the case since “both the victim and the accused are members of the Armed Forces and the crime charged was committed while in the line of duty (line of duty offense); thus, under Article 282 of the 1979 Political Constitution, Article 10 of Law 24150 and Article 328 of the Code of Military Justice, the case should be taken up by courts exclusively reserved for military justice.”7 22. The State alleged that on January 22, 1990, the Huanta Examining Magistrate notified the President of the First Joint Chamber of the Superior Court that he was declining the case. It asserted that on September 27, 1988, the Permanent Examining Judge of the Peruvian Air Force declared Captain Alvaro Artaza Adrianzen to be a defendant in absentia. It noted that on June 19, 1995, the Supreme Council of Military Justice granted the aforementioned Captain the benefit of amnesty, in application of Law No. 26479. The State pointed out that on April 17, 1996, Lima’s Sixth Civil Court declared Captain Artaza Adrianzén presumed dead, whereupon the Office of National Identification and Vital Statistics drew up the respective death certificate. Proceedings in connection with the 50 bodies discovered in graves at Pucayacu (case in the court of ordinary jurisdiction No. 30-84 and case in the court of military jurisdiction No. 784-84) 23. According to the State, after various complaints from Huanta’s residents to the effect that their family members had disappeared between July and August 1984, the Public Prosecutor’s 7 Communication received from the State on September 14, 2009, p. 4, and annex, memorandum V-110-11-JILI-Nº 1279 issued by the Permanent Examining Judge of the Peruvian Air Force. 4

Select target paragraph3