2
2.
In Section II of its application, the Commission set out the facts that gave
rise to this case, which the Court summarizes in this chapter.
3.
According to eyewitness accounts, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on April 29,
1990, uniformed members of the Mendoza police detained Adolfo Argentino GarridoCalderón and Raúl Baigorria-Balmaceda as they were riding in a vehicle. The event
transpired at General San Martín Park in the city of Mendoza. According to the
witnesses, the two individuals in question were questioned or detained by at least
four police wearing the uniform of the Mendoza motorized police unit and driving two
unit patrol cars.
4.
Relatives of Mr. Garrido were informed of what had transpired by Ms. Ramona
Fernández, who had learned about the incident from an eyewitness, about an hour
after the fact had ocurred.
5.
Relatives of Mr. Garrido immediately launched a search to find him and were
concerned because there was a warrant out for his arrest. The family asked attorney
Mabel Osorio to make inquiries as to his whereabouts. From the inquiries it was
established that Mr. Adolfo Garrido was not in custody at any police station.
However, at Mendoza’s fifth precinct, family members did find the vehicle in which
Mr. Garrido and Mr. Baigorria had been traveling at the time of their detention. The
police informed them that the vehicle had been located in General San Martín Park,
based on an anonymous phone tip reporting an abandoned car.
6.
On April 30, 1990, attorney Osorio filed a writ of habeas corpus on Mr.
Garrido’s behalf, and on May 3 attorney Oscar A. Mellado did likewise on Mr.
Baigorria’s behalf. Both writs were heard by the Fourth Court of Inquiry of the First
District of Mendoza Province and were dismissed on the grounds that deprivation of
liberty had not been shown.
7.
On May 2, 1990, the family of Mr. Garrido filed a formal complaint with the
office of the sitting district attorney concerning the two men’s forced disappearance.
The case was heard in the Fourth Court of Inquiry of the First District of the Province
of Mendoza, and was case No. 60.099.
8.
When Mr. Esteban Garrido, brother of one of the victims, answered the
summons to appear in Court, he encountered there a police officer Geminiani, who
acknowledged that a police officer had shown Mr. Adolfo Garrido’s photograph to the
owners of a business that had been robbed, and that the police "were looking for
him." These statements were entered into the record of the court proceedings.
9.
The application listed the names of the eyewitnesses who saw Mr. Garrido
and Mr. Baigorria being detained by police officers.
10.
The families of the disappeared reported the events to the Committee on
Rights and Guarantees of the House of Representatives and to the Senate of the
Mendozan Legislature on May 2 and 11, 1990, respectively, but received no
response.
11.
On September 19, 1991, Mr. Esteban Garrido filed another writ of habeas
corpus on behalf of the two disappeared, this time with the First Court of Inquiry of
Mendoza. It, too, was dismissed. The appeal filed with the Third Criminal Court of
Mendoza was denied on November 25, 1991.

Select target paragraph3