2

the military jurisdiction for the following reasons: (i) the accused were active-duty officials; (ii) they acted
in the discharge of their assigned duties in a military operation; (iii) the legally protected interest is
“discipline and the protection of life, the supreme aim of the State;” (iv) the acts were defined in the Code
of Military Justice and occurred in a battle between commandos and terrorist group; and (v) they were
acting in a zone declared to be in a “state of emergency.” The State also contended that the evidence
must be examined in a domestic legal proceeding. It added that the criminal trial held in the civilian justice
system was conducted in accordance with the procedural guidelines provided under the law.
5.
After examining the position of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concluded
that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, due process and judicial
protection enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation
set out in Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez and Herma
Luz Meléndez Cueva.
II.

PROCEEDING BEFORE THE IACHR

6.
APRODEH, Edgar Cruz Acuña and Herma Luz Cueva Torres lodged the initial petition on
February 3, 2003. The procedures from the submission of the petition through the admissibility decision
2
are set out in detail in the Admissibility Report issued on February 27, 2004.
7.
On March 11, 2004, the Commission notified the parties of the aforementioned report
and, pursuant to Article 38.1 of the Rules of Procedure in effect at that time, granted the petitioners two
months to present their additional observations on the merits. In addition, based on Article 38.2 of the
Rules of Procedure, it placed itself at the parties’ disposal to seek a friendly settlement.
8.
On June 1, 2004, the petitioners submitted their observations on the merits, which the
IACHR forwarded to the State on June 17, 2004, requesting it to submit its observations within a two
month period. The State did not submit its observations.
9.
On October 25, 2004, the petitioners reported that Mr. Montesinos Torres, Mr. Nicolás de
Bari Hermoza Ríos and Mr. Roberto Huamán Acurra, on trial in the civilian justice system in relation to the
alleged events, had been released because a verdict had not been handed down within the time period
established under the law.
10.
On January 4, 2005, the petitioners asked to attend a hearing in relation to the instant
case. On January 28, 2005, the Commission notified the parties of that hearing. That same day, the
petitioners accredited CEJIL as a co-petitioner. A public hearing was held on the instant case on February
28, 2005, during its 122 regular session, which was attended by the petitioners and the State, and at
which Mr. Hidetaka Ogura testified.
11.
On April 23, 2008, the petitioners forwarded an additional communication on the merits.
On May 23, 2008, the IACHR forwarded this communication to the State, requesting it to submit its
observations within a one month period. On June 25, 2008, the State requested an extension of this time
period, and a one month extension was granted on June 27 of that year. On August 5, 2008, the State
submitted its observations. On September 2, 2008, the IACHR forwarded this communication to the
petitioners, requesting them to submit their respective observations within a one month period.
12.
On October 8, 2008, the petitioners submitted their observations on the State’s
communication. On October 27, 2008, the IACHR forwarded them to the State, requesting it to present
any observations it considered relevant within one month. On November 29 and December 29, 2008, the
State requested an extension to respond to the Commission’s request. On December 2, 2008, and
January 6, 2009, the Commission granted those extensions for periods of one month.
2

2004.

IACHR, Report No. 13/04 (Admissibility), Petition 136/03, EDUARDO NICOLÁS CRUZ SÁNCHEZ ET AL, February 27,

Select target paragraph3