suspicious vehicle, the police immediately gave chase and engaged the assailants in the vicinity of the Lima-Callao Development. The brothers Emilio and Rafael Gómez Paquiyauri, ages 14 and 17, respectively, happened to be passing by, on their way to their mother’s food stand nearby, and were detained in the confusion created by the skirmish. 7. The petitioners noted that Rafael and Emilio Gómez Paquiyauri were put in the trunk of patrol car 27-1058, of the 27th command of the National Police, and taken to an isolated place where they were brutally interrogated on the assumption that they were criminal subversives. The Gómez Paquiyauri brothers denied any involvement in the robbery and the charges against them. They also said that they were only passing by the place where the clash occurred. The police beat them with the butts of their machine guns and then killed them, as Sergeant Antezama later confessed. He was the only police officer to confess his crime to the Callao Prosecutor. 8. The petitioners report that television cameras captured the detentions on film. That television film became the main piece of evidence to the effect that the young brothers were alive when they were arrested, and strongly suggested that they murdered while in police custody. When a television program broadcast the film, the Ministry of the Interior issued official communiqué No. 06-91 wherein it stated that the facts would be “thoroughly investigated." 9. The petitioners report that some days later, on June 25, 1991, the date on which the complaint surrounding these events was filed with Callao’s 5th Criminal Attorney’s Office, the home of the victims’ parents was searched and the mother was summoned to the offices of the Anti-Terrorism Bureau to be deposed. All this was part of a campaign to harass the victims’ next of kin, who were seeking an inquiry into the events and punishment of those guilty of murdering the above-named youths. 10. The petitioners report that on November 9, 1993, the Third Criminal Law Chamber of the Callao Superior Court convicted the material authors of the crimes. The petitioners point out that although it was proven that the youths were murdered on an order dispatched by radio to the police who were holding the youths, the only persons prosecuted were the five police officers who received the orders to execute the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers. The intellectual authors of the crime, i.e., the persons who had sent radio dispatches ordering that the victims be killed–namely Captain César Augusto Santoyo (a deserter) and Police Major Juan Valdelomar Quiroz Chávez-went unpunished. The Superior Court Prosecutor and Callao’s Third Correctional Court expressly dropped the case proceedings against them, even though there was sufficient evidence linking them to the victims’ deaths. 11. The petitioners point out that the orders that Captain César Augusto Santoyo Castro and Peruvian Police Major Juan Valdelomar Quiroz Chávez radioed were reliably established by the statements made by noncommissioned offers José Infantes Quiroz and Angel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo, who were the drivers for the patrolmen who killed the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers. They allege that the fact that both boys were killed at the same time is evidence that their execution was ordered from above, which is precisely what the examining magistrate in the case had concluded. 12. The petitioners allege that the domestic remedies have been ineffective for purposes of punishment of the intellectual authors responsible for sending the radio dispatch ordering that the victims be killed. They also allege that the police and court inquiry were cover-ups for those who gave the order that the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers be killed and who have still eluded prosecution. 13. The petitioners contend that on October 24, 1994, a former noncommissioned officer sent a letter to the National Human Rights Coordinator to report the threats that he and his family were receiving because of statements he had made to the press to the effect that there were intellectual authors of these crimes who were going unpunished. 14. The petitioners argue that Peru has failed to compensate the victims’ next of kin. They report that on November 29, 1993, the Third Chamber of the Callao Superior Court handed 2

Select target paragraph3