REPORT No. 77/12 CASE 11.581 MERITS ZULEMA TARAZONA ARRIETA AND OTHERS REPUBLIC OF PERU November 8, 2012 I. SUMMARY 1. On January 22, 1996, the Association for Human Rights (Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos, APRODEH) and Messrs. Víctor Tarazona Hinostroza and Santiago Pérez Vela (hereinafter “the petitioners”) lodged a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission,” “the Inter-American Commission,” or “the IACHR”) against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “Peru,” “the State,” or “the Peruvian State”) in connection with the murder of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez, and with the injuries suffered by Mr. Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura, at the hands of members of the Peruvian Army in an incident on August 9, 1994. The petitioners claim that the Peruvian State violated the right to life, to humane treatment, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), together with its obligation to respect rights as set out in Article 1.1 thereof. 2. The petitioners state that at around 8:30 p.m. on August 9, 1994, Ms. Zulema Tarazona Arrieta, Ms. Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez, and Mr. Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura were headed toward their respective homes on a public bus when the vehicle stopped to let another passenger alight. As the bus pulled away, two soldiers from the Peruvian Army approached it from behind and tried to get it to stop. They claim that since the bus driver was unaware of the soldiers’ presence and continued on his way, Army Sergeant Second-Class Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo discharged his weapon at the vehicle, causing the deaths of Ms. Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and injuring Mr. Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura. They state that the sergeant fled the area and concealed the incident from his superiors. 3. On October 10, 2001, the IACHR adopted Admissibility Report No. 83/01, in which it concluded that it was competent to hear the complaint presented by the petitioners and it decided, based on the factual and legal arguments and without prejudging the merits of the case, to rule the complaint admissible for the alleged violation of Articles 2, 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof. 4. In their comments on the merits, the petitioners allege that as a result of an unnecessary, deliberate, and disproportionate action by a member of the Army, two people were killed and another seriously injured, and that the State is therefore responsible for violating the alleged victims’ right to life and to humane treatment. They claim that the State initially failed to conduct an investigation before an independent and impartial judge, since the case was brought before the military courts, which sent the proceedings to the archive under amnesty laws in 1995, in clear violation of Article 2 of the American Convention. They state that finally, in the year 2003 – in other words, eight years later – the case was taken from the archive at the request of the victims’ families and was closed in November 2008: that is, 14 years after the incident, on account of which the State is responsible for having failed to conduct an investigation within a reasonable time. 5. The State, in turn, says that it has been established that the incident of August 9, 1994, in which Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Pérez lost their lives and Alberto Bejarano Laura was injured, was the consequence of the shot fired by Sergeant Second-Class Antonio Evangelista Pinedo, whose intention was to fire into the air. It maintains that the State has an institutional and regulatory framework that allows the investigation and prosecution of those suspected of human rights violations and that framework led, in the case at hand, to the conviction of Sgt. Antonio Evangelista Pinedo. Regarding the