2

Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Lori Helene
Berenson Mejía (hereinafter “Lori Berenson” or “the alleged victim”). It also indicated
that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to adopt domestic legislative
measures, in the terms of Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention. All
the foregoing, according to the Commission, in relation to the proceedings in which
she was tried by both military courts and civil courts, to the inhumane conditions of
detention to which she was subjected in the Yanamayo maximum security prison, in
Puno (hereinafter “Yanamayo Prison”), and to the issue of Decree Laws Nos. 25,475
and 25,659, and their application in the said proceedings.
3.
According to the information which the Commission provided in the
application, the alleged victim was detained on November 30, 1995, in Lima, Peru,
and then tried, under the provisions of Decree Law No. 25,659, by a “faceless’
military court and with restrictions to her right to a defense. On March 12, 1996, Lori
Berenson was sentenced to life imprisonment for “treason.” On August 18, 2000, as
a result of Lori Berenson’s defense lawyers having filed an appeal for “special review
of res judicata [“sentencia ejecutoriada”],” the Supreme Council of Military Justice
annulled the judgment of March 12, 1996, and waived jurisdiction in favor of the
ordinary criminal jurisdiction. The Commission added that the alleged victim was
confined in the Yanamayo Prison from January 17, 1996, to October 7, 1998 (2
years, 8 months and 20 days), and during this period was subjected to inhumane
detention conditions.
4.
The Commission added that, on August 28, 2000, a new proceeding against
Lori Berenson was commenced in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction. This trial
culminated in the judgment of June 20, 2001, which found Lori Berenson guilty of
the crime of “collaboration with terrorism,” established in Article 4 of Decree Law No.
25,475, and sentenced her to 20 years imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Justice
of Peru confirmed the judgment on February 13, 2002.
5.
The Commission also requested the Court, in accordance with Article 63(1) of
the Convention, to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation, which
were described in the application. Lastly, it requested the Court to order the State to
pay the costs arising from processing the case in the domestic jurisdiction and before
the organs of the inter-American system.

II
COMPETENCE
6.
Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978,
and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. Consequently, the
Court is competent to hear this case in the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the
Convention.

III
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
7.
On January 22, 1998, the Commission received a petition submitted by
Grimaldo Achahui Loaiza, Ramsey Clark and Thomas H. Nooter, denouncing that the
State had violated certain rights established in the American Convention, to the
detriment of Lori Berenson.

Select target paragraph3