REPORT Nº 44/01 CASE 11.016 EMILIO MOISÉS AND RAFAEL SAMUEL GÓMEZ PAQUIYAURI PERU March 5, 2001 I. SUMMARY 1. On July 2, 1991, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Commission,” the “Inter-American Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition filed by Mrs. Marcelina Paquiyauri de Gómez, which the Centro de Estudios y Acción para la Paz (CEAPAZ) [the Center for Studies and Action for Peace] (hereinafter “the petitioners”) later elaborated upon. The petition was filed against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “Peru,” the “State” or the “Peruvian State”) and alleged that on June 21, 1991, Peruvian National Police arbitrarily detained and murdered young Emilio Moisés and Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri. The petitioners contend that the facts in question constitute violations by the Peruvian State of the rights to life, to humane treatment and to personal liberty, recognized in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”). Peru requested that the case be closed, inasmuch as those responsible for the deaths of Emilio Moisés and Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri had been convicted of aggravated homicide and sentenced to imprisonment. The State reported that they were also ordered to pay civil damages to each of the victims’ legal heirs. The IACHR therefore decides to admit the case and to continue to examine its merits. II PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION 2. The Commission opened the case on June 12, 1992, and forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the Peruvian State with the request that it provide information within 90 days. The State responded on September 30, 1992. On November 11, 1992, the Commission sent the State’s reply to the petitioners and requested that they send their comments within 45 days. 3. On October 21, 1992, the State sent a communication to the Commission, enclosing a report done by the Ministry of the Interior on this case. On June 8, 1993, the State sent additional information, and on December 15, 1993 sent a copy of the conviction handed down by the Callao Superior Court. It also requested that the present case be closed. On October 20, 1994, the State sent additional information, which was forwarded to the petitioner on November 17, 1994. 4. On April 28, 1997, the State sent the Commission additional information. The petitioners presented comments on that additional information on June 12 and July 23, 1997. On August 20, 1997, the State sent the Commission its observations on the petitioners’ most recent communication. The petitioners responded on November 18, 1997. 5. On May 1, 2000, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter. On June 21, 2000, the State requested an extension of the established time period. On June 29, 2000, the IACHR granted a 30-day extension effective that date. None of the parties made any statement concerning the Commission’s offer of a friendly settlement. III. A. POSITION OF THE PARTIES The petitioners’ position 6. The petitioners allege that a vehicle carrying securities was stolen in the Province of Callao on June 21, 1991. Police immediately launched a search for the assailants. A Callao Special Services police van was nearing Avenida de la Marina in the Province of Callao. Inside were Commander Pedro González (chief of that unit) and four other police officers. Spotting a 1

Select target paragraph3