2
(Judicial Protection) and 27(2) (Suspension of Guarantees), to the detriment of Mr.
Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Mr. Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera. The Commission asked
the Court to demand Peru to undertake the necessary investigations for to identify,
judge, and punish those who were guilty of committing these violations; to inform on
the whereabouts of Mr. Durand Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte Rivera corpses, and to give
them back to their relatives. Finally, the Commission asked the Court to demand the
State
to make full moral and material reparation and indemnification to the relatives of
Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte for the grave damage sustained as a
result of the multiple violations of the rights recognized in the Convention and also [to
pay] for all expenses incurred by the victims relatives and representatives before the
Commission and the Inter-American Court in processing the case.

In the final plea brief, the Commission stated the alleged violation of Article 5(2) of
the American Convention.
II
COMPETENCE OF THE COURT
2.
The Court is competent to have knowledge of the present case. Since July 28,
1978 Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention, and it acknowledged
the mandatory competence of the Court on January 21, 1981.
III
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
3.
On April 27, 1987, the Commission received a complaint on alleged violations
of human rights to the detriment of Mr. Durand Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte Rivera. On
May 19 of the same year the corresponding sections of such accusation were sent to
the State, according to Article 34 of the Rules of the Commission, and requested
information on internal recourse exhaustion.
4.
On January 19, 1988 the Commission reiterated to the State the petition to
submit the corresponding information of the case. On next June 8, it insisted on the
petition, indicating that, if no answer was received, it would consider the
implementation of Article 42 of its Rules, wherein it stipulates that
[t]he facts indicated in the petition and whose relevant parts have been conveyed to the
Government of the State concerned if the maximum deadline set by the Commission
pursuant to the Article 34, paragraph 5, shall be considered truthful, said Government
would not render the corresponding information as long as other certainty elements
would not result in another conclusion.

On February 23, 1989 once again the Commission requested this information. On
next May 31, the petitioners asked that denounced actions be taken for granted.

5.

Peru submitted a brief dated September 29, 1989 wherein it stated that
[c]oncerning cases 10.009 and 10.078 of public domain they are in a judicial process
before the Military Exclusive Court of Peru, pursuant to the laws in force, it must be
stated that the internal jurisdiction of the State has not been yet exhausted, so it would

Select target paragraph3