3

e)
On June 24, 1986, the Navy’s Permanent Court-Martial ordered
proceedings to determine whether the Navy troops that put down the riot
were criminally liable. The Navy’s Second Permanent Court of Inquiry, after
hearing and prosecuting the case, dismissed it on July 6, 1987, on the
grounds that the accused were not liable. That ruling was upheld by the
Navy’s Permanent Court-Martial on July 16, 1987. On July 20, 1989, the
Review Chamber of the Supreme Court of Military Justice confirmed a decision
handed down by the Court-Martial Chamber of the Supreme Court on January
30, 1989, which dismissed the case against those accused of crimes against
the life, personal integrity, and health of the deceased El Frontón inmates and
of aggravated abuse of authority.
III
PROCEEDINGS WITH THE COMMISSION
3.
On April 27, 1987, the Commission received a petition alleging violations of
the human rights of Mr. Durand Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte Rivera. On May 19 of that
year, it forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the State, pursuant to Article
34 of the Commission’s Regulations. It also asked the State to provide information
as to the exhaustion of local remedies.
4.
On January 19, 1988, the Commission again asked State for information
relevant to the case. It repeated its request on June 8 of that same year, and
pointed out that absent a reply, it would consider application of Article 42 of its
Regulations. On February 23, 1989, the Commission again requested information.
On May 31, 1989, the claimants requested that the facts denounced be presumed to
be true.
5.
The State filed a brief dated September 29, 1989, wherein it stated the
following:
It is common knowledge that cases 10,009 and 10,078 are being prosecuted in Peru’s
military courts, pursuant to the laws currently in force. Since the internal jurisdiction of
the State has not been exhausted, it would be advisable for the IACHR to wait for the
conclusion of such proceedings before arriving at a final decision on the cases in
question.

6.
On June 7, 1990, the Commission requested information from the State
concerning the exhaustion of local remedies, the proceedings under way in the
military courts, and whether the whereabouts of Mr. Durand Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte
Rivera had been ascertained. The State did not respond to this request.
7.
On March 5, 1996, the Commission approved Report No. 15/96 and
forwarded it to the State on May 8 of that year. In the operative part of that report,
the Commission resolved:
1.
TO DECLARE that Peru is responsible for violating, to the detriment of
Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera and [Nolberto] Durand Ugarte, the right to personal liberty,
the right to life, the right to judicial protection, and the right to the judicial guarantees
of due process of law, recognized in articles 7, 4, 25 and 8 of the American Convention
and that in the instant case, Peru failed to comply with the obligation to respect the
rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and to ensure their free and full
exercise, as set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention.

Select target paragraph3