2

regarding the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection, the State noted that the petitioner filed for no
remedies, in spite of being both an attorney and a magistrate.
5.
After analyzing the positions of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the
State of Peru was responsible for violating the rights to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, to
legality and freedom from ex post facto laws, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, and 25 of
the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, with respect to
Mr. Galindo Cárdenas. In addition, the Commission concluded that in the case at hand, with respect to the
members of Mr. Galindo’s family, the State violated the right to human treatment enshrined in Article 5 of the
American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof.
II.

PROCESSING BY THE IACHR

A.

Processing of the Case

6.
The Commission examined the petition during its 110th period of sessions and adopted
Admissibility Report No. 14/04 on February 27, 2004, which it conveyed to the parties on March 11, 2004, while at
the same time making itself available to the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement in the matter
pursuant to Article 48.1.f of the American Convention. In addition, according to Article 38.1 of its Rules of
Procedure in force at the time, the Commission asked the petitioner to submit his additional comments on the
merits. On April 5, 2004, the Commission received a communication from the petitioner indicating that attorney
Richard M. Rocha had been appointed to serve as the alleged victim’s representative; acknowledgment of that
information was given in a letter dated May 10, 2004. Later, on September 28, 2004, the IACHR received the
petitioner’s additional comments on the merits, which were forwarded to Peruvian State in a communication of
October 27, 2004, with a period of two months for it to return its own additional comments on the merits.
7.
On January 24, 2005, the Commission received a letter from petitioner stating his willingness to
begin the friendly settlement proceedings as offered by the IACHR, and that information was forwarded to the
State in a communication of March 2, 2005. Later, on February 21, 2005, the IACHR received a request from the
petitioner asking for a public hearing to be held in connection with his case during the Inter-American
Commission’s 122nd regular session. The IACHR replied in a letter of February 8, 2005, that, on account of the high
number of requests for hearings, his application could not be granted. On April 14, 2005, the Commission received
from the State a request for an extension of the deadline for returning its comments. Later, the State submitted its
additional comments on the merits in a communication dated May 10, 2005, which were forwarded to petitioner
in a communication of May 25, 2005, with a period of one month for returning his comments. The State gave no
response to the IACHR’s offer to begin the friendly settlement procedure.
8.
On June 27, 2005, the IACHR received a communication with the petitioner’s comments, along
with a request for a public hearing to be held in connection with the case. In a communication of July 6, 2005, the
Commission acknowledged receipt of the previous communication and, in a communication of September 19,
2005, it informed the petitioner that it would not be possible for his request to be granted during the IACHR’s
123rd regular session.
9.
The petitioner filed additional requests for public hearings in communications dated September
12 and December 15, 2005, and January 15 and May 2, 2006, to which the IACHR replied by means of
communications dated February 13 and June 21, 2006. In communications dated October 16, 2006, and January
15, 2007, the petitioner asked for a hearing on this case to be held. On July 31, 2007, the IACHR received a letter
from the petitioner, which was forwarded to the State in a communication of September 27, 2007. The State
requested a one-month extension in a communication dated October 26, 2007, which was granted by the IACHR in
a communication of November 5, 2007. In communications of October 29 and November 28, 2007, the petitioner
requested that a hearing on the case be held during the IACHR’s next period of sessions. The Commission
acknowledged receipt of the petitioner’s communication of October 29, 2007, in a communication dated January
16, 2008.

Select target paragraph3