3

12.
The petitioners stated that on May 9, 1991, the alleged victim’s brother, Porfirio Osorio
Rivera, lodged a complaint with the Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office in Cajatambo, claiming that
the whereabouts of Jeremías Osorio had been unknown since April 30, 1991. They indicated that the
Provincial Criminal Court of Cajatambo opened committal proceedings for the crime of violating the right
to personal freedom against Juan Carlos Tello Delgado, at the time a serving Army lieutenant. They said
the committal proceeding was referred to military jurisdiction in July 1992 and was finally shelved on
February 7, 1996, through a final ruling of dismissal by the Supreme Council of Military Justice.
13.
The petitioners alleged that Lt. Juan Carlos Tello Delgado, in an attempt to conceal the
truth, later presented a document dated May 1, 1991, titled “certificate of release”, containing the
signature and fingerprint of Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera. They said this document was not signed by any
military or judicial authority, and that, considering the circumstances under which it was produced, it could
be inferred that the alleged victim was forced to sign it.
14.
According to the petitioners’ narrative, the alleged victim’s next-of-kin were unable to
receive appropriate legal advice during the proceedings before the Cajatambo prosecutor’s office and
provincial court between May 1991 and July 1992. They reported that attorneys in the province refused to
pursue a case against members of the armed forces, for fear of reprisals. They further stated that in May
1991, Mr. Porfirio Osorio filed complaints with the national Attorney General in Lima and with the Human
Rights and Peace Commission of the Democratic Constituent Congress, but received no information on
any investigations that might have been pursued.
15.
According to the allegation, on June 14, 2004, Porfirio Osorio Rivera presented a new
complaint to the Office of the Special Prosecutor on Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions,
and Exhumation of Clandestine Graves (hereinafter “the Office of the Special Prosecutor”), concerning
the alleged forced disappearance of his brother Jeremías Osorio. They said that on September 24, 2004,
the Office of the Special Prosecutor ordered that a preliminary investigation be opened, and that this was
refused jurisdiction and referred to the Provincial Joint Prosecutor’s Office of Cajatambo on June 8, 2005.
16.
The petitioners affirmed that on October 26, 2005, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
of Cajatambo lodged a formal accusation that a crime against humanity, forced disappearance, and a
violation of the right to personal liberty had been committed against Jeremías Osorio Rivera. They stated
that, at the request of Porfirio Osorio Rivera, the hearing of the case was transferred to the Fourth
Supraprovincial Criminal Court, which handled the investigations phase and presented the case file to the
National Criminal Court. They indicated that on October 30, 2007, the Office of the Second Superior
National Criminal Prosecutor lodged an accusation against Juan Carlos Tello Delgado, requesting 20
years in prison and other sanctions. They alleged that on April 29, 2008, the National Criminal Court
instituted judicial proceedings, declaring that grounds existed to subject the accused to an oral trial.
17.
The petitioners affirmed that on December 17, 2008, the National Criminal Chamber
issued an acquittal, alleging reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of Juan Carlos Tello Delgado for the
acts of which he was accused. According to the allegation, the Criminal Court found that the
disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera had been proven, but found that the defendant, Juan Carlos
Tello Delgado, had released him, and that this was demonstrated by the slip of paper, allegedly signed by
Mr. Osorio Rivera, entitled “certificate of release.” The petitioners said that a handwriting analysis
conducted by the Criminology Directorate of the National Police at the end of 1991 had indicated that the
fingerprint on that paper did not match that of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. They argued that the
circumstances of his detention showed that any signature he might have affixed to the paper would have
been coerced by the members of the Army patrol, and that it had not been evaluated by the National
Criminal Chamber.
18.
The petitioners said that on December 18, 2008, they presented, in their capacity as the
injured parties in the proceedings, an appeal to void the acquittal issued by the National Criminal
Chamber. They reported that on February 23, 2009, the appeal was found admissible and placed before
the Supreme Court of Justice, which ordered, on June 24, 2010, the annulment of the first-instance
judgment.

Select target paragraph3