3
of Mrs. Díaz Aparicio. It was alleged that that investigation is still in the preliminary stage and that in
November 2009 the Office of the Public Prosecutor ordered its provisional archiving.
B.
The State
13.
In its initial brief, the State sent official letters from the Joint Armed Forces Command, the
Army General Inspectorate, divisions of the National Police of Peru and the Office of Detainee Control.
These letters indicated that there was no record of the intervention or arrest of Teresa Díaz Aparicio by
state security personnel. A communication received by the IACHR on January 26, 2005 maintained that
in 2003 Mr. Federico Díaz Aparicio submitted communications to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the
APRODEH organization, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission “in which he detailed the events
relating to the disappearance of his sister.”
14.
The State asserted that on March 7, 2003 an order was issued to open a police
investigation under the direction of the Office of the Special Prosecutor on Forced Disappearances,
Extrajudicial Executions, and Exhumation of Clandestine Graves with respect to the disappearance of
Mrs. Díaz Aparicio. It stated that during the prosecutor’s activities statements were taken from relatives
and others close to the injured party, and information was sought from various state entities such as the
Ministry of the Interior, DIRCOTE, the National Office of Electoral Processes, the Interrogations Division
of the National Police, the National Penitentiary Institute, the San Marcos National University, hospitals,
and morgues in the province of Lima.
15.
In a communication received on June 13, 2011 the State asserted that “a considerable
amount of time has elapsed during which neither the victim’s representatives nor the IACHR have pushed
for the processing of this case.” In this regard, it noted “its concern regarding the inaction on the part of
both the petitioners and the Honorable Commission, as shown by the passage of time, inaction that has
affected the process and limited the State’s ability to present a defense.”
16.
The State attached an official letter from the alternate representative of the Attorney
General’s Office to the National Human Rights Council dated May 10, 2010. According to that letter, on
February 13, 2009 the Prosecutor in charge of the investigation into the alleged disappearance of Teresa
Díaz Aparicio issued a resolution of provisional archiving and submitted the case file to the Division of
Police of the Public Prosecutor’s Office “in order to continue with the investigation and submit information
on new evidence.” That same letter indicated that it was impossible to obtain necessary evidence that
could be used to identify those allegedly responsible for the disappearance of Mrs. Díaz Aparicio.
17.
The State argued “that due to the passage of time and the absence of efforts to pursue
the process, new evidence has not been presented, the principle of a matter already concluded has been
operating in this petition, and additionally there has been no confirmation of the violation of any of the
rights enshrined in the Convention.” Finally, the State asked the IACHR to archive the petition in
accordance with Article 48(1)(b) of its Rules of Procedure and Article 42(1) of the Convention.
IV.
ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY
A.
Competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae
of the Commission
18.
The petitioners are empowered by Article 44 of the Convention to submit complaints to
the Commission. The alleged victim is a natural person who was under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian
State on the date of the alleged events. For its part, Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28,
1978. Consequently, the Commission is competent ratione personae to hear the petition.
19.
The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, since it contains
allegations of violations of rights protected by the American Convention that allegedly took place within
the territory of a state party to that treaty.