2
order to satisfy the basic needs of his family and himself. They indicate that Mr. Quispealaya has been
able to survive due to the support of his elderly mother.
4.
For its part, the State alleged that although a proceeding was taking place before the
criminal military jurisdiction when the IACHR published Admissibility Report No. 19/05, at the present
time the military-police jurisdiction in Peru has been reformed in order to be consistent with the
Constitution and the American Convention. It indicated that the proceeding was reopened before the
civil courts in 2007 and closed in 2008, given that Mr. Quispealaya could not be located and as a result,
the pertinent medical-legal reports could not be realized in order to establish the length of his disability
and the medical attention that he required. It indicated that the mere presence of a State official was
not a sufficient element to characterize the alleged events as torture, because it is necessary that the
intent to cause the victim pain or serious suffering be concurrent with some of the objectives of the act
established in Peruvian law. It alleged that it was the place of the Attorney General, as the prosecutor of
the criminal proceeding, to evaluate and characterize the acts that constitute the claim and to
determine the criminal responsibility of an individual in relation to the alleged commission of a crime, a
situation that could not materialize in the presumed case. It stated that the IACHR cannot intervene in
this proceeding as a court of fourth instance, nor can it determine the criminal responsibility of an
individual in relation to the alleged commission of a crime, because the criminal responsibility of the
instructor was not proven in this case.
5.
After analyzing the position of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concludes
that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal integrity, enshrined in
Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same and in Article 8
of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture to the detriment of Mr. Quispealaya
Vilcapoma; the right to judicial guarantees and protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the
American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr.
Quispealaya Vilcapoma, and the right to personal integrity according to Article 5(1) of the American
Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of Ms. Victoria Vilcapoma
Taquia, mother of Valdemir Quispealaya Vilcapoma.
II.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION

A.

Processing of the case

6.
The Commission examined the petition during its 122nd period of sessions and
approved Admissibility Report No. 19/05 of February 25, 2005 and transmitted it to the parties on
March 14, 2005, putting itself at the parties’ disposition in order to reach a friendly settlement of the
matter according to Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention. Additionally, the Commission
requested that the petitioners, in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Rules of Procedure in place at the
time, present their additional observations regarding the merits. On May 17, 2005, the Commission
received a communication from the petitioners which expressed their disposition to reach a friendly
settlement of the matter. The IACHR sent this communication to the State on June 1, 2005 and
provided a period of one month to present observations. The State requested an extension by means of
a communication dated July 1, 2005, and the IACHR granted an extension of 20 days in a communication
of July 15, 2005.
7.
On November 10, 2005, the Commission received a letter from the State indicating that
at that time, it was unable to offer its availability to initiate a friendly settlement proceeding with regard

Select target paragraph3