-5I.
INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE
1.
The case submitted to the Court. – On June 3, 2013, the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”)
submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “brief
of submission”) Case No. 11,581 Tarazona Arrieta et al. against the Republic of Peru
(hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”). The Commission indicated that the case related to the
deaths of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta (hereinafter also Ms. Tarazona Arrieta) and Norma Teresa
Pérez Chávez (hereinafter also Ms. Pérez Chávez), as well as the injuries to Luís Alberto
Bejarano Laura (hereinafter also Mr. Bejarano Laura), on August 9, 1994, “as a consequence
of the shots fired by a member of the Army against a vehicle of public transport” in which the
alleged victims were travelling.
2.
Procedure before the Commission. – The procedure before the Commission was as
follows:
a.
Petition. – On January 22, 1996, the Association for Human Rights (Asociación
Pro Derechos Humanos - APRODEH) and Víctor Tarazona Hinostroza and Santiago Pérez
Vera (hereinafter “the petitioners” or “the representatives”) lodged the initial petition
before the Commission.
b.
Report on admissibility. – On October 10, 2001, the Commission adopted
Admissibility Report N° 83/01.1
c.
Merits Report. – On November 8, 2012, the Commission adopted Merits Report
N° 77/12 (hereinafter “the Merits Report”) under the terms of Article 50 of the Convention,
in which it reached a series of conclusions and made several recommendations to the
State:
i. Conclusions. The Commission concluded that the State was responsible
for the violation of the following rights recognized in the American
Convention:
1)
Right to life, to the detriment of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez;
2)
Right to personal integrity, to the detriment of Mr. Bejarano Laura;2
3)
Rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, to the detriment of the next of kin of Ms.
Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez, and to that of Mr. Bejarano Laura, and
Right to personal integrity, to the detriment of the next of kin of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms.
Pérez Chávez, and to that of Mr. Bejarano Laura.
4)
ii. Recommendations. Consequently, the Commission made a series of
recommendations to the State “bearing in mind that a final criminal
conviction has been handed down in the case and that the State has
complied with the payment of moral redress imposed in the judgment of
July 23, 2008, as a civilly responsible third person in the incident:”
1)
Make appropriate amends for the human rights violations established in the [Merits Report], with
fair compensation for the 14-year delay in the judicial proceedings to the next of kin of Ms. Tarazona
Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez, and to Mr. Bejarano Laura;
In its Report, the Commission concluded that it was competent to hear the complaint presented by the
petitioners and declared it admissible for the alleged violation of Articles 2, 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention,
in relation to Article 1(1) thereof.
1
The Commission, however, considered that the violation was partially remedied by the conviction of the
accused of the incident by the competent court and by the enforced payment of moral redress to the victim.
2