The petitioners attached a document signed by a staff member of the Office of the
Defender of the People on September 13, 2006, which certifies that Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera has been
missing, by way of forced disappearance, since he was last seen in the province of Cajatambo,
department of Lima, on April 30, 1991.
As regards their claims on matters of law, the petitioners held that Mr. Jeremías Osorio
Rivera was arbitrarily deprived of his life by members of the Army, and that the competent judicial
authorities failed to clarify the facts and punish the guilty through a diligent, swift, and effective
investigation. They contended that during the criminal proceedings that began in June 2004, several
vitally important formalities requested by the injured party were not performed, such as summoning the
witnesses who had seen Jeremías Osorio Rivera being transferred from Nunumia to the Cajatambo
Countersubversive Base on April 30, 1991. Similarly, no reconstruction of the events was performed, and
no inspection was carried out at the Cajatambo military base. They added that the criminal investigation
identified Lt. Juan Carlos César Tello alone as the suspected perpetrator; no other members of the patrol
that detained the alleged victim or other members of the military who were apprised of his arrest were
The petitioners contended that in its judgment in the case of Gómez Palomino, handed
down on November 22, 2004, the Inter-American Court ordered the Peruvian State to amend its criminal
definition of forced disappearance enshrined in Article 320 of the Criminal Code to bring it into line with
the terms of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. They noted that in the
case of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro, the Inter-American Court again ruled on the failure to comply with
that obligation and that, to date, the Peruvian State has not taken the steps necessary to align its
legislation’s definition of the crime of forced disappearance with the inter-American standards.
In light of the foregoing, the petitioners held that the Peruvian State failed in its obligation
of respecting and ensuring the human rights set forth in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American
Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, together with the rights set out in Articles I and
III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.

Position of the State

Regarding the situation of impunity alleged by the petitioners, the State argued that the
obligation to investigate supposed violations of fundamental rights “pertains to means, not to results.”
Peru contended that the impartial and independent actions of the judicial authorities since Mr. Porfirio
Osorio Rivera presented his complaint on June 14, 2004, demonstrate that efforts have been made to
investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the alleged forced disappearance of Mr.
Jeremías Osorio Rivera. It added that the many years that have gone by without those responsible for the
facts being punished are due to the inherent complexity of forced disappearance investigations and the
demands involved in identifying the perpetrators of this type of crime.
The State presented general information on the Public Prosecution Service’s activities
with exhumations, identifying remains, and investigations in forced disappearance cases. It said that in
the year 2001, Internal Directive No. 011-MP-FN was issued, regulating “investigations by the prosecution
service after the discovery of suspected sites with human remains related to serious human rights
violations.” Peru added that resolution No. 1262-2003-MP-FN, adopted by the Attorney General of the
Nation on August 13, 2003, created the Specialized Forensic Team, attached to the Legal Medicine
Institute and responsible for forensic procedures formalities in cases involving disappearances that took
place during the internal armed conflict.

Communication of the petitioners, received on March 9, 2010, attached, document entitled “Certificate of Absence by
Forced Disappearance,” issued on September 13, 2006, by the Office of the Defender of the People in Lima, record number 0193.

Select target paragraph3