2

January 26, February 2 and 16, March 11 and May 9, 2005. The petitioners in turn submitted additional
briefs on May 11 and September 30, 2004 and January 12, 2007.
6.
On July 30, 2010 the IACHR asked the parties to submit additional information. On June
13, 2011 the State submitted its response, which was forwarded to the petitioners on June 23 of the same
year. The petitioners submitted observations on July 27, 2011.
III.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A.

The petitioners

7.
The petitioners asserted that Mrs. Díaz Aparicio was arrested for the first time on March
st
28, 1989 and presented to the 41 Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office, and an investigation was
initiated against her for the crime of terrorism. They stated that on April 7 of the same year she was
released by the head of the above-mentioned Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. They stated that on August
10, 1989 members of the National Police of Peru broke into her residence and told her mother that she
should appear on the following day at the headquarters of what was then the Anti-Terrorism Directorate
(DIRCOTE), although they left no notification.
8.
The petitioners asserted that on August 11, 1989 Mrs. Díaz Aparicio filed a habeas
st
corpus action with the 41 Examining Court of Lima, alleging that her liberty and personal security were in
st
danger. They stated that the 41 Court declared the action inadmissible, concluding that “the existence of
an investigation pending in DIRCOTE against the petitioner that would threaten her liberty through
potential arrest has not been established.” It was alleged that that decision was based on statements
made by the Chief and Assistant Chief of DIRCOTE, indicating that they had not ordered entry into the
residence of Mrs. Díaz Aparicio. It was alleged that after the described events Mrs. Díaz Aparicio
mentioned to her relatives that she was under surveillance by members of the National Police.
9.
The petitioners asserted that on August 19, 1992 Mrs. Díaz Aparicio was headed to the
School of Social Sciences at the San Marcos National University where she was a professor. They
indicated that when it was realized that the alleged victim did not return to her home on that date, her
brother Federico Díaz Aparicio asked friends and relatives where she might be and looked for her at
hospitals, clinics, and the central morgue of Lima and Callao, but obtained no information. It was alleged
that since August 19, 1992 the relatives of Teresa Díaz Aparicio have no information on her whereabouts.
10.
The petitioners stated that between 1991 and 1992 death squads created within the
security forces carried out arbitrary arrests, executions, and disappearances of students and teachers at
the universities of San Marcos and Enrique Guzmán y Valle (La Cantuta). They added that in its final
report published in 2003 the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that between 1989 and
1993 there was a systematic practice of forced disappearances of hundreds of people who were
suspected of being a member of collaborating with the insurgent group, Shining Path. In this respect and
in view of the police record and the search without a court order of the residence of Mrs. Díaz Aparicio,
the petitioners maintained that the alleged victim was forcibly disappeared.
11.
The petitioners stated that although the alleged forced disappearance of Mrs. Díaz
Aparicio occurred in August 1992 the judicial authorities have not clarified the facts or identified and
punished those responsible. They argued that in the light of case law in the inter-American system “in
order to establish that a violation of the rights enshrined in the Convention has occurred it is not
necessary to determine, as happens in domestic criminal law, the culpability of the perpetrators or their
intention, nor is it essential to individually identify the agents to whom the violating acts are attributed.”
12.
According to the petitioners’ allegations, on February 27, 2002 Mr. Federico Díaz
Aparicio filed a habeas corpus action in order to discover the whereabouts of his sister. However, that
action was declared groundless in the final instance by the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, and the
Provisional Prosecutor’s Office was ordered to initiate investigations for the alleged forced disappearance

Select target paragraph3