admissible for alleged noncompliance with Articles I and III of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced
Disappearance of Persons.
6.
On April 4, 2007, the Commission notified both parties of the adoption of the admissibility report,
and placed itself at their disposal for the purpose of arriving at a friendly settlement of the matter. In the
same communication, the IACHR granted the petitioners two months to present their additional comments on
the merits. The petitioners responded in a communication dated April 16, 2007, informing the Commission of
their interest in initiating a friendly settlement procedure. That communication was submitted to the State,
with the request to submit, within one month, its decision on the possibility of initiating a friendly settlement
process. On August 9, 2007, the State submitted a brief giving its comments, but without clearly indicating its
position with regard to the possibility of initiating a friendly settlement procedure. On September 17 and
October 1, 2007, the State submitted further comments. These, together with the communication of August 9,
2007, were transmitted to the petitioners who, in a communication dated October 23, 2007, submitted
comments. In a communication dated December 12, 2007, the Commission considered its attempt to seek a
friendly settlement agreement as concluded, and requested the petitioners to submit their comments on the
merits within two months; they were presented on June 23, 2009. The IACHR forwarded these comments on
the merits to the State on August 5, 2009, and requested it to provide additional comments on the merits
within two months. The State responded on October 2 of that year.
7.
Subsequently, the Commission received communications from the petitioners on April 6, 2010, April
4, 2011, and February 17, 2016. It also received communications from the State on September 30 and
December 5, 2011. The relevant parts of those communications have been duly forwarded to the parties.
III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.

Position of the petitioners

8.
The petitioners stated that Walter Munárriz Escobar, 19 years old, was a student at the Mining
Engineering School at the University of Huancavelica. They reported that early in the morning of March 20,
1999, Walter Munárriz Escobar went to “Los Manolos” Hotel looking for a friend, and mistakenly entered the
room of another person who turned out to be the wife of an officer of the Peruvian National Police (PNP). The
petitioners added that Walter Munárriz Escobar, upon realizing his error, apologized and proceeded to leave.
However, the hotel guest, thinking that he must be a thief, notified the owner of the hotel and the police. They
stated that that same night, Walter Munárriz Escobar was arrested by a sub-officer of the Peruvian National
Police [PNP] and taken to the Lircay police station; the owner of the hotel also arrived at the station and, since
she recognized him, she decided not to file a complaint against him. The petitioners asserted that when the
hotel owner left the police station, Walter Munárriz Escobar was still there, and has been a disappeared
person ever since.
9.
The petitioners reported that when Walter Munárriz Escobar’s mother, Mrs. Gladys Escobar
Candiotti, went to the police station to inquire into his whereabouts, the police officers told her that he had
already left the station heading for home, and denied any knowledge of his whereabouts. They further
recounted that when she did not find her son, she returned to the police station and asked to check the
facilities, where she found two persons detained (Raúl Donayres Huamán and Marcos Leónidas Sierra
Tueros), but not her son.
10.
The petitioners indicated that the family of Walter Munárriz reported his disappearance to the
appropriate authorities and sought various judicial and administrative remedies. They reported that on
March 21, 1999, his mother went to the Lircay Provincial Prosecutor’s Office to file a complaint on the
disappearance of her son; she indicated that she presumed that the police who were on duty on March 20,
1999 were responsible for the disappearance. The petitioners stated that the Prosecutor refused to receive
the complaint and told her to come back in 60 days. According to the petitioners, Mrs. Gladys Escobar
Candiotti returned three times to that Prosecutor’s Office, where she met with the same refusal each time.
The petitioners added that, on the following day, Mrs. Escobar Candiotti filed a report on the disappearance of
her son in the Lircay police station.

2

Select target paragraph3