38. The Commission’s doctrine holds that whenever an ex officio prosecuting crime is
committed, the State has an obligation to set in motion and pursue the criminal process
through to completion. In such cases, this is the appropriate avenue to clarify the facts, try
those responsible, establish the corresponding criminal penalties and make other forms of
pecuniary reparations possible. The facts set forth by the petitioners in connection with the
disappearance of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca are, under the corresponding domestic law, criminal
offenses whose investigation and prosecution the State is obliged to pursue ex officio, which
means that this process is the appropriate remedy in the instant case.
39. In the present case, although the Peruvian State reported on the domestic judicial
proceedings, it did not expressly invoke the objection claiming a failure to exhaust domestic
remedies and thereby tacitly waived this defense argument. 14 From the information supplied
by the parties, the Commission observes that various proceedings were instituted into the
alleged forced disappearance of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca.
40. First, the next of kin of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca filed a series of complaints with the Office
of the Huanta Provincial Prosecutor, starting on July 9, 1984. They also reported his
disappearance to various institutions in the Judicial Branch, the Armed Forces, the Ministry of
the Interior and the Congress of the Republic.15 Since that date, a number of investigations
and inquiries have been instituted in ordinary and military jurisdictions.
41. The information in the case file indicates that on January 3, 1986, the Huanta Examining
Magistrate instituted a criminal inquiry against Captain Álvaro Artaza Adrianzén for the alleged
criminal abduction of noncommissioned Army officer Rigoberto Tenorio Roca and civilian Juan
Medina Garay, thereby opening Case File No. 1-86. On January 22, 1990, the Huanta
Examining Magistrate disqualified himself from continuing to conduct the preliminary inquiry
and declined jurisdiction in favor of the military justice system, whose proceedings on the case
were classified as number 3186-524-86. According to information supplied by the State, on
April 17, 1996 Lima’s Sixth Civil Court declared Captain Artaza Adrianzén presumed dead. At
the time he had been under indictment as a defendant in absentia since August 1986.
42. As for the second proceeding opened in the military justice system against Captain Álvaro
Artaza Adrianzén for the alleged murder of 50 persons whose corpses were discovered in
Pucayacu (case file No. 784-84), the available information indicates that on January 21, 1986
the Permanent Navy Court Martial adopted a decision to dismiss. 16 On May 7, 1986, this
decision was confirmed by the Supreme Council of Military Justice, which ordered that the case
be definitively closed.17
43. The Commission has held that the military justice system does not afford a proper remedy
to investigate, try and punish human rights violations alleged to have been committed by the
armed forces.18 The Inter-American Court has written that military criminal justice is an
appropriate forum only for prosecuting military for the commission of crimes or misdemeanors
that affect military interests.19 Therefore, the Commission concludes that for purposes of the
admissibility requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, the
proceedings instituted in military jurisdiction to investigate the alleged forced disappearance of
Rigoberto Tenorio Roca (case files Nos. 3186-524-86 and 784-84) are not an effective remedy.
14 IACHR, Report 10/09, Petition 4071-02, Argentina, Mercedes Eladia Farelo, March 13, 2009, paragraph 37.
15 See paragraphs 10, 11 and 19 above.
16 Attachment to the State’s communication of June 23, 2009, case file No. 784-84, Proceedings conducted against
Lieutenant Commander Álvaro Artaza Adrianzén for the crime of murder, at 226, Dismissal Ruling delivered January
21, 1986.
17 Attachment to the State’s communication of June 23, 2009, case file No. 784-84, Proceedings conducted against
Lieutenant Commander Álvaro Artaza Adrianzén for the crime of murder, page number illegible, Dismissal issued by
the Supreme Council of Military Justice on May 7, 1986, confirming the dismissal.
18 IACHR, Report No.47/08, Petition 864-05, Colombia, Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo and family, July 24,
2008, paragraph 74.
19 I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte Case v. Peru Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000, Series C No. 68, paragraph
117; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paragraph 131;
and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paragraph 124.
7