2
foregoing in relation to Article 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) and Article 2
(Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention. Although the Court had been requested
to pronounce judgment on a possible violation by the State of Article 17 (Rights of
the Family), the Commission did not refer to this point again nor did it provide any
arguments, consequently the Court did not pronounce judgment in this respect.
3.
According to the Commission’s submission, as a result of the violation of the
rights indicated, Gustavo Cesti Hurtado was included in an action under the military
justice system, in the course of which he was arrested, deprived of his liberty and
sentenced, despite the existence of a final decision in a habeas corpus action
ordering that the alleged victim should be separated from the proceedings under the
military justice system and that his freedom should be respected.
4.

Furthermore, the Commission requested that the Court should
a.
b.
c.
d.

5.

declare that the State violated Article 51.2 of the Convention, by not
respecting the recommendations made in Report No. 45/97 of October
16, 1997;
require Peru to punish those responsible for the violations against the
victim;
declare that the State should execute the decision of the Public Law
Chamber of Lima of February 12, 1997, and that it should liberate the
alleged victim immediately and unconditionally; and
declare the nullity and the lack of legal effects of the proceeding
against the alleged victim under the Peruvian military justice system,
“thus annulling the judgment and all the interlocutory decisions that
limit [his] personal and property rights”.

Lastly, the Commission requested
[t]hat the Peruvian State should remedy and pay compensation to the victim
for the time that he has been unlawfully detained and for the damage caused to
his personal honor by treating him as a prisoner, for embargoing his assets, for
the remuneration that he has not perceived by being unable to exercise his
right to work while he was unjustly detained and for the anxiety caused by
being obliged to receive medical treatment that he had not chosen
[and that]
the Peruvian State should be condemned to pay the costs of this action.

II
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
6.
On March 7, 1997, the Secretariat of the Commission received a complaint
made by Carmen Judith Cardó Guarderas in favor of her husband, Gustavo Adolfo
Cesti Hurtado. On March 10, 1997, the Commission informed the State of the
complaint and requested it to present the corresponding information within 90 days.
7.
On April 25, 1997, as a precautionary measure, the Commission requested
Peru to report whether the decision issued in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
filed by Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado had been complied with “in all its parts” and, if
so, what measures would be adopted in this respect. Furthermore, it requested the
State to submit information on the medical attention that Gustavo Adolfo Cesti
Hurtado had received.

Select target paragraph3