-43are being developed and there was no information presented that would show that those
programs are not sufficient. Therefore, it is not appropriate to order the measure requested.
187. With respect to the request to adapt the domestic law on the use of force, the Court
notes that the domestic normative at the moment of the incident was later amended. In
addition, it notes that the constitutionality of the present law is being challenged in the
domestic courts (supra para. 166). Consequently, it is not appropriate that the Court decide
on that measure of reparations requested by the representatives.
E. Compensation
188. The Commission requested that the Court adequately repair the declared violations of
human rights with fair compensation for the delay of 14 years in the judicial proceedings for
the next of kin of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez, as well as for Mr. Bejarano
Laura. The representatives also asked that compensation be ordered for the pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damages suffered by the victims.
189. With respect to non-pecuniary damages, specifically consequential damages, although
the representatives recognized that the next of kin received financial support from the State
for the burial of the deceased victims in a cemetery of their choice, they indicated that other
costs related to the funerals, held according to their beliefs, were not covered. In addition,
although the medical treatment that Mr. Bejarano Laura received received was paid by social
security to which he was entitled as an employee, expenses such as transportation to his
home and the necessary medicines were not included. Therefore, the representatives
requested that the Court determine, in equity, compensation for consequential damages. As
to lost wages, they requested the amount of USD $83.502,31 (eighty-three thousand, five
hundred two United States dollars and thirty-one cents) “as wages not received from 1991 to
2012” for each of the deceased victims. For Mr. Bejarano Laura, they requested the Court to
determine, in equity, that the State pay the sum of USD $3.500 (three thousand, five hundred
United States dollars) since he was hospitalized from the day of the incident, August 9, 1994,
until August 31 of the same year and was then unable to work for a month.
190.
The representatives also requested that an amount, in equity, be determined for the
expenses incurred as a result of the deaths and injuries to the victims for which they do not
have the recepts that prove the corresponding amounts since the incident occurred 14 years
ago.
191. With respect to the non-pecuniary damages, the representatives requested USD
$20.000 (twenty thousand United States dollars) for the moral redress caused to Ms. Tarazona
Arrieta and to Ms. Pérez Chávez, an amount arrived at with reference to “a case with similar
characteristics.”159 They requested USD $16.500 (sixteen thousand, five hundred United
States dollars) for moral redress suffered by Mr. Bejarano Laura as a consequence of the
anguish that he felt at the moment of the incident and because “he had to have an operation.”
Finally, they asked for USD $7.000 (seven thousand United States dollars) for the parents of
Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and of Ms. Pérez Chávez, as a consequence of the “deep suffering”
caused by the “lack of response of the Peruvian authorities” that “had lasted almost 14 years.”
192. The State considered that “it had complied with repairing the matters involved in the
present case due to the decisions of the domestic courts” and manifested its “complete
opposition” to the requested monetary reparations.
The representatives refer to the Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations
and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251.
159