11 5 May 16, 1992, which establishes the terms whereunder the benefits of sentence reduction, exemption, remission, 6 or attenuation of the penalty are to apply to the perpetrators of terrorist crimes, and Articles 6, 27, 28, and 29 of Supreme Decree No. 015-03-JUS, which regulated the Repentance Law as regards crimes of terrorism. IV. PROVEN FACTS 7 57. In accordance with Article 43.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission will examine the facts alleged by the parties and the evidence submitted during the processing of this case. In addition, it will take into account knowledge in the public domain, including resolutions by the committees of the universal human rights system, its own reports on petitions and cases and on the general human rights situation in Peru, publications from nongovernmental organizations, and laws, decrees, and other regulations in force at the time of the facts alleged by the parties. 58. The IACHR will include, in the evidence for this case, the Final Report of the Truth and 8 Reconciliation Commission (hereinafter “the CVR”), published in the city of Lima on August 27, 2003. That document was placed before the three branches of government of the Peruvian State, the Attorney General’s office, and other agencies of the public administration, in compliance with the mandate issued by the President of 9 the Republic in Supreme Decrees 065-2001-PCM and 101-2001-PCM. 59. In the following paragraphs, the IACHR will address the general context surrounding the incidents in the case at hand, the facts already established, and the consequent responsibility of the Peruvian State. 5 Article 1.2.a of Decree Law No. 25499 of May 16, 1992: “II.A Exemption from punishment: a. When a person involved in a terrorist crime, whether facing a criminal trial or not, voluntarily provides timely, truthful information revealing details of terrorist groups or organizations and their operations, the identities of their leaders, heads, chiefs, and/or main members, and future actions for their prevention or neutralization. Statements shall be given to the police, in the presence of a representative of the Public Prosecution Service or before the judge in the proceedings, as applicable. If the person or persons are not subject to a police investigation or criminal trial, their statements shall necessarily be given to the Provincial Prosecutor or Senior Prosecutor in any location of the Republic. On an exceptional basis, in areas declared under states of emergency or states of siege, the statements referred to in the previous paragraph may be given to the authorities of the Political/Military Command with a representative of the Public Prosecution Service in attendance. b. When the agent informs the police or judicial authority of a threat situation that would allow harm to be prevented.” 6 Article 6 of the Regulations to the Repentance Law: “The benefit of sentence exemption and waiver shall apply to individuals, whether involved in a criminal trial for terrorist crimes or not, who voluntarily provide timely and truthful information revealing details of terrorist groups or organizations and their functions and fully identifying the leaders, heads, chiefs, or members of the organization, together with the arrest thereof, preventing or neutralizing future terrorist actions, or informing the police or judicial authority of a threat situation that would allow harm to be prevented.” 7 Article 43.1 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure provides as follows: The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge. 8 The CVR’s Final Report has been used by the Commission in a series of cases, as well as by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in ruling on facts and the international responsibility of the Peruvian State in the following matters: Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C No. 167; Case of La Cantuta, Judgment of November 29, 2006, Series C No. 162; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160; Case of Baldeón García, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147; Gómez Palomino Case, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 136; and Case of De la Cruz Flores, Judgment of November 18, 2004, Series C No. 115. 9 According to Supreme Decrees 065-2001-PCM and 101-2001-PCM, the CVR’s purpose was to establish the facts and responsibilities of the terrorist violence and human rights violations that were carried out between May 1980 and November 2000 by both the terrorist organizations and the agencies of the State, and to propose initiatives intended to ensure peace and harmony among the people of Peru.