for the record the specific allegations made by those who said they were victims of beatings and mistreatment: Mercedes Valencia said that during the raid on her home at around 2:00 a.m., she and her son were beaten and that “his skull was depressed”; she also alleged that she was mistreated at the prison.15 Alfredo Bazán y Rosas (José Miguel Abildo Díaz) said that at the time of his apprehension he was beaten all over his body.16 Víctor Boggiano Bruzon (Juan Ramírez Ortega) said that he was beaten in the face, he had not received medical attention; he could not see out of his right eye and his head ached.17 Upon ratifying his statement one month later, he explained that during the previous statement he had been feeling unwell because of the physical abuse he had received from the police who raided his house.18 In all three of her statements, Francis Primentela, said that the police raid on her home was conducted violently, she was placed face-down, she was physically and verbally assaulted, they beat and kicked her even when she told them that she was pregnant, and they pressured her to make a statement.19 Claudia Valencia Alarcón also complained of being beaten, and that the women were forced to spread their legs and had guns pointed at them, as did the children; she added that she had been pressured by the prosecutor and her defense attorney to make a statement, that both of them insulted her, and that ultimately it was the attorney who answered the questions.20 21. The hearing on precautionary measures was held on December 19, 2001 before the Investigating Judge. The prosecution sought pretrial detention for the 17 detainees,21 owing to their alleged participation in the crimes of murder, aggravated robbery, criminal association, and manufacture and possession of explosive weapons. During the hearing, at which the alleged victims were present, the public defenders and private defense counsels expressly informed the investigating judge that it was clear that the detainees had been physically assaulted, their detention was unlawful and that excessive and unnecessary force had been used in it, they had not been detained in the act of committing a crime, they had been presented to the press, been victims of torture and other cruel treatment, and their right to be presumed innocent had been infringed. While the first lawyer was presenting those facts, he was interrupted by the Investigating Judge, who instructed him to confine his remarks to the precautionary measures.22 In his decision, the Investigating Judge referenced the allegations of the lawyers of the accused. However, he did not address the lawfulness of the detention or take any additional steps and merely indicated that the assessment of probability of authorship—one of the grounds for his decision to order pretrial detention for all the accused at PTJ facilities—did not violate the principle of innocence. However, he founded his decision on “the presentations of the parties in this hearing […] the technical visual inspection reports, the operations carried out on the days prior, and the statements both of the accused and of other persons who knew about this incident.”23 22. The record contains photographs published by local newspapers on December 18, 19, and 21-27, 2001, that identify eight of the detainees in person.24 The photographs clearly show them with injuries on their bodies and faces, from which it may be surmised that those individuals were severely beaten.25 On January 30, 2002, La Prensa newspaper included an article that referred again to the mistreatment. The article said that the detainees had been sent to the Chonchocoro detention centers and Miraflores women’s jail on December 24, 2001, where they were “off-limits” to families and friends and were unable to converse privately, even with their lawyers. The article also mentioned that on January 18, 19, and 21, 2002, they managed to interview 16 Annex 04, Prosegur Case Statements, Additional statement of Mercedes Valencia, January 16, 2002, pp. 61 and 66. Annex 04, Prosegur Case Statements, José Miguel Alvildo Diaz, December 18, 2001, p. 101 verso. 17 Annex 04, Prosegur Case Statements, Juan Ramírez Ortega, December 18, 2001, p. 105. 18 Annex 04, Prosegur Case Statements, Juan Ramírez Ortega, March 20, 2002, p. 103. 19 Annex 04, Prosegur Case Statements, Francis Primentela Merino, December 18, 2001, and January 17, pp. 132, 133, 135, 136, and 137. 20 Annex 04, Prosegur Case Statements, Claudia Valencia Alarcón, January 16 and June 20, 2002, pp. 151 and 152. 21 The detainees presented at that hearing were Enrique Castro Ramírez, Alberto Farfán Larrosa o José Miguel Aroldo Díaz, Juan Ramírez Organi, Walter Herrera Ríos, Alfredo Rodríguez Vives, Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia, Victoria Gutiérrez Aguilar, Blas Valencia Campos, Oswaldo Lullelam Antezana, Claudia Valencia Alarcón, Francis Pimentel Medina, Norma de Valencia, Carlos Cruz Añez, Elacio Peña Córdova, Freddy Cáceres, Patricia Gallardo Arduz, and Raúl Lulleman Gutiérrez. 22 Annex 05, Record of Public Hearing on Precautionary Measures, Eighth Investigating Judge for Criminal Matters and Precautionary Measures, December 19, 2001. 23 Annex 06, Resolution No. 189/2001, Reasoned Order, Eighth Investigating Judge for Criminal Matters and Precautionary Measures, December 19, 2001. 24 Blas Valencia, Norma de Valencia, Carlos E. Castro, Juan Ramírez O., Eliceo Peña C., Alberto Farfán, Walter Herrera Ríos, and Carlos Cruz Añez. 25 Annex 07, Various newspaper cuttings, including La Prensa of December 18, 2001, El Diario of December 19, 2001, and the weekly El Pulso of December 21-27, 2001. All are appended as annexes to the petitioners' complaint of January 24, 2003. 15 16 6