23. The Peruvian State has not disputed the petitioners’ allegations regarding the start and
end of the civil and military proceedings for the denounced events. Nonetheless, Peru alleges
that the petition is inadmissible because the petitioners failed to exhaust domestic remedies to
seek compensation for the victims or their relatives.
24. To decide on the exception opposed by the State, the Commission must establish which
domestic remedies must be exhausted in relation to the events alleged in the petition under
study. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has indicated that only adequate remedies for
the violations allegedly committed must be exhausted and clarified that:
Adequate domestic remedies are those which are suitable to address an infringement of a
legal right. A number of remedies exist in the legal system of every country, but not all
are applicable in every circumstance. If a remedy is not adequate in a specific case, it
obviously need not be exhausted. 1
25. The Inter-American Commission has indicated that whenever a prosecutable offense is
committed, the State has the obligation to promote and advance the criminal proceedings
through to the end 2 and that, in these cases, this is the ideal way to clarify events, judge those
responsible, and establish the corresponding criminal sanctions, as well as allow for other
modes of pecuniary reparations.
26. This interpretation is consistent with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’
explanation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in which it states
that “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms
recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full
exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status,
birth, or any other social condition.” In this regard, the Inter-American Court explained that
the aforementioned obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of the human rights
mentioned in the Article mentioned above implies the duty of the States Parties to organize the
governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is
exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human
rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate and punish
any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to
restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from
the violation. 3
27. States’ international obligation to compensate victims of human rights violations
committed by their agents is therefore one of its direct, main responsibilities, i.e. it is a direct
responsibility of the State and does not require that victims first take personal action against
those agents, regardless of the content of domestic provisions on the matter.
28. In situations like the one in the petition under study, which denounces the murder of two
persons and injuries to a third, the domestic remedies that must be taken into account for the
purposes of determining the petition’s admissibility are those related to investigating and
punishing the perpetrators. 4 5
1 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, paragraph 63.
2 See, for example, IACHR, 1997 Annual Report, Report Nº 52/97 - Arges Sequeira Mangas, Case 11.218,
(Nicaragua), paragraphs 96 and 97.
3 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 166.
4 Notwithstanding, in the petition under study, the alleged victims were plaintiffs in the aforementioned criminal suit
before the 27th Criminal Court of Lima, in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code and Code of Criminal
Procedure of Peru; however, they were not able to obtain any reparations because the case was tabled. In this regard,
Article 92 of the Penal Code of Peru stipulates that “civil reparations are determined at the same time as the
punishment,” while Articles 54 and 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure state that: “the injured party, ancestors or
descendants, spouse, collateral kinsmen, and related family once removed can become plaintiffs [and]offer the
evidence they deem appropriate to clarify the offense”
4