Report No. 108/11
July 22, 2011



On June 10, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also
“the Inter-American Commission,” "the Commission" or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by
Amadea Tello de Tenicela and Norma Juana Tenicela Tello (hereinafter also “the petitioners”) on behalf
of Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello (hereinafter also “the alleged victim”), claiming that the Republic of Peru
(hereinafter also “Peru,” “the State” or “the Peruvian State”) violated the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5,
7, 8 and 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also "the American Convention" or
"the Convention"). The petitioners stated that on October 2, 1992 Cory Clodolia Tenicela was detained in
Huancayo, Department of Junín, by members of the Peruvian Army and that her fate and whereabouts
remain unknown since them. They stated that only in July 2003 did the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
of Huancayo open an investigation into the disappearance of the alleged victim and that the judicial
authorities did not take the necessary measures to determine her whereabouts, investigate the events
and punish the perpetrators.
The State indicated that Ms. Tenicela Tello’s alleged forced disappearance is under
investigation in the context of a criminal case involving dozens of victims and defendants, which required
a series of evidentiary proceedings. It maintained that the complexity of the facts resulted in a longer
investigatory stage. It argued that criminal proceedings consistent with due process is under way. It
asserted that as the domestic courts have not rendered a final judgment, the petition should be declared
inadmissible pursuant to Articles 46(1)(a) and 48(1)(b) of the American Convention.
After examining the positions of the parties in the light of the requirements of admissibility
set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, the Commission concluded that it is competent to
consider the petition regarding Articles 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the American Convention, in conjunction with
Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument. Furthermore, in application of the principle of iura novit curia, the
IACHR declared admissible Articles 3 and 25 of the American Convention and Articles I and III of the
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Commission also concluded that
the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention does not meet the admissibility requirement set forth
in Article 47(b) of said treaty. Lastly, it decided to notify the parties of the instant Admissibility Report, to
publish it and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.


On June 10, 2003, the initial petition was received and docketed as number 422-03. On
April 21, 2008, the petitioners submitted an additional brief. On April 20, 2010, these documents were
forwarded to the State with a period of two months to submit its response, in keeping with the IACHR’s
Rules of Procedure.
On July 6, 2010, the State requested an extension to submit its reply, indicating that the
Office of the Public Prosecutor in charge of Ministry of Defense matters was preparing a report to be
presented the IACHR. On July 30, 2010, the Commission informed that according to Article 30(3) of its
Rules of Procedure, it could not grant an extension. On August 10, 2010, the State submitted its reply,
which was forwarded to the petitioners on January 10, 2011.

Select target paragraph3