REPORT No. 76/10
Jeremías Osorio Rivera Et Al.
July 12, 2010


1. On November 20, 1997, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also
“the Inter-American Commission," "the Commission," or "the IACHR") received a petition
presented by Porfirio Osorio Rivera and by the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH)
(hereinafter also “the petitioners”) on behalf of Jeremías Osorio Rivera (hereinafter also “the
alleged victim”) which alleged a violation by the Republic of Peru (hereinafter also “Peru," "the
State," or "the Peruvian State") of the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the
American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the American Convention” or “the
Convention”), in connection with Article 1.1 of that instrument. The petitioners affirmed that
Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera was detained by members of an Army patrol on April 28, 1991, in
the province of Cajatambo, department of Lima, and that his whereabouts had been unknown
since that date. They alleged that the complaints presented by the relatives of the alleged
victim had proved fruitless and that a trial pursued under military jurisdiction was dismissed in
a final ruling in February 1996. They indicated that the investigation was reopened in
September 2004 but had not yet concluded. They noted that, although over 19 years has
passed since the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera, the judicial
authorities has not clarified the facts, determined his whereabouts, punished those
responsible, or provided others measures of reparation to his relatives.
2. The State described the judicial measures taken in connection with the alleged forced
disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. It said that, since the investigation had been
reopened in September 2004, the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the Judiciary had been
taking a number of measures to ascertain the facts and punish those responsible. The State
argued that the fact that several years have passed without a definitive judicial ruling under
ordinary jurisdiction was due to the complexity of the case and of the crime under
investigation. It indicated that the criminal trial has been held by impartial and independent
bodies and required that the petition be shelved, concluding that the grounds for its
presentation to the IACHR no longer existed.
3. After examining the positions of the parties in the light of the admissibility requirements set
forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, the Commission concluded that it is competent
to hear the complaint concerning the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the
American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of that instrument; and in Articles I and
III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. In addition, the
Commission decided to notify the parties of this Report on Admissibility, publish it, and include
it in its Annual Report.


4. On November 20, 1997, the petition was received and registered under number 11.845. On
April 13, 2009, the petition was transmitted to the State, with the request that the State reply
within 90 days, in keeping with the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR then in force.
5. On February 12, 1998, the State presented its reply, which was transmitted to the
petitioners on February 25 of that year. The petitioners transmitted additional pleadings on
August 21, 1998, March 9, 2010, and May 14, 2010. For its part, the State presented
additional communications on July 19, 1999, February 17, 2005, April 5, June 22 and 18,


Select target paragraph3