Court to require the State to explain in detail what actions are being developed to meet this
obligation.
8.
The Commission did not present observations given that, after various periods were
granted, the State failed to provide information on the measures adopted to comply with
this measure of the Judgments on the merits and reparations.
9.
Given the general obligation to respect and guarantee the rights of the next-of-kin of
Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez, and as expressed by the Court in the judgments on the merits
and reparations ordered in this case, as well as in the Orders of the Court of April 3, 2009,
and May 19, 2011, 6 the State’s obligation to take measures within its power to determine
the whereabouts of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez remains. In this regard, although Peru
stated that it requested information from the Public Prosecutors and the Judiciary about his
whereabouts, the Court considers it appropriate to remind the State that the criminal
investigation is not incompatible with the adoption of different appropriate and effective
means of locating the whereabouts of missing persons. 7
10.
The Court recalls that during the proceeding before the Inter-American system, the
next-of-kin of the disappeared victim declared that, according to the non-official sources,
the young Castillo Páez “had been assassinated at a beach in the south of Lima and that his
body had been bombed with explosives.” 8 Specifically, during the public hearing on the
merits of the case held at the Court on February 6 and 7, 1997, it was noted that
“Commander Juan Carlos Mejía León was the officer responsible for the death of Mr. Castillo
Páez”, and it was he who reported “that his remains had been taken to a beach in the south
of Lima and blown up with explosives.” 9 Subsequently, during the monitoring of compliance
of the Judgments on the merits and reparations, it was reported that on March 16, 2006,
the National Criminal Chamber of Peru convicted Juan Carlos Mejia Leon, Manuel Santiago
Arotuma Valdivia, Carlos Manuel Depaz Briones and Juan Fernando Aragón Guibovich,
sentencing them to deprivation of liberty “for the crime against humanity –Forced
Disappearance- against Ernesto Castillo Páez” and to pay the amount established for civil
reparation. 10 Notwithstanding, more than seven years after the ruling of the National
Criminal Chamber and after seventeen years since this Court heard the testimony that
linked Juan Carlos Mejía León in the possible elimination of the Mr. Castillo Páez’s remains,
Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 90; Case
of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 103; Case
of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering clause nineteen, and Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance
with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, Considering clause eight.
6
7
Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2011, Considering clause fifteen, and Case of Blanco Romero et al. V.
Venezuela. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of
November 22, 2011, Considering clause thirteen.
The Court does not have information procedures carried out in this regard, notwithstanding, in Orders of
the Court of April 3, 2009 and May 19, 2011, it was noted that the State had not informed the Court whether this
version of events had been disproved or confirmed by authorities. Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Monitoring of
Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, Considering
clause nine, and Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering clause twenty.
8
Testimony of Augusto Zúñiga Paz. See also Testimony of Cronwell Pierre Castillo Castillo, father of the
victim, rendered before the Court. Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Fondo. Judgment of the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 30.a) and e).
9
Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering clause eight.
10
4