25. The State alleges that the operation was not planned as an assault on the prison. Instead,
before police intervened, the government attorney in charge and national police officials
attempted to persuade and convince the inmates to make the move. It goes on to state that
whereas the male inmates who were members of the “Shining Path” rejected these overtures,
a number of female inmates came out and were taken voluntarily and peaceably to the “Santa
Monica” prison, after being given a medical check-up.
26. The State alleges that in a document dated May 8, 1992, an appeal was made to the
rioting inmates to give up. According to the State, the inmates initially agreed to be
transferred to other prisons. It alleges that the terms of the transfer were even worked out,
especially immediate treatment of the wounded. It adds, however, that the rioting inmates did
not honor the terms of the agreement and refused to exit the cellblocks peacefully.
27. The State also refutes the petitioner’s allegation that it refused the intervention of the
International Red Cross requested by the inmates. The State maintains that the document
shows that representatives of the International Red Cross were present. It adds that at no
time did the representatives of the Attorney General’s Office obstruct or object to the presence
and intervention of the representatives of the International Red Cross and that the inmates
used that false argument to justify their failure to honor the terms of the document in
question.
28. The State contends that Army troops did not selectively and summarily execute the
prisoners as they were leaving the prison, since the Army troops did not have a direct hand in
the operation against cellblock “1A” or “4B”; instead, they confined their activities to security
outside the prison.
29. The State argues that the events occurred because of a confrontation initially instigated by
the inmates, when they rioted and forcibly obstructed the transfer of female inmates
prosecuted for terrorism to the Santa Mónica prison. It adds that in response to the surprise
attack launched by the rioting prisoners, who were armed with “quesos rusos” [a package
containing the contents of several dynamite charges, combined with nails and pieces of metal
used for shrapnel to inflict greater damage; these contents are then wrapped in paper or
plastic, and a fuse and detonator attached], firearms, and muriatic acid, the police forces
directly handling the operation repelled the attack. It points out that prior to the police’s
successful actions to take back the cellblocks that the inmates had taken over, the latter were
urged to exit peacefully and to agree to the transfer. However, the rioting inmates rejected the
appeal and responded by firing shots from inside cellblock “4B”. The police were forced to
return fire, which is how some of the inmates died.
30. As for the allegations concerning the transfer that occurred on May 22, 1992, the State
reiterates that the Peruvian Army did not directly participate in the operation; that there was
absolutely no contact between the Army troops and the rioting inmates, and that the Army’s
role was to serve as an escort for the operation.
31. Concerning the assertions of inhuman conditions in Peruvian prisons, the State points out
that Attorney General Mirtha Campos made surprise, personal visits to the Santa Mónica,
Yanamayo-Puno, San Sebastián and Cristo Rey prisons to inspect the real situation of the
inmates at those facilities.
32. The State attached information to the effect that following the events at the “Castro
Castro” prison, the attorneys and families of the inmates prosecuted for terrorism and housed
at that prison filed a petition of habeas corpus with a judge in Lima, against the prison warden
and other officials. The petition alleged, inter alia, the abduction, incommunicado incarceration,
and harm done to the inmates by being denied sufficient food and medical care. The judge
ordered that a summary inquiry be conducted to investigate the conduct of the State agents in
the events to which the appeal referred. Later, however, on July 21, 1992, the judge declared
the petition inadmissible.
4