REPORT No. 20/09 PETITION 235-00 ADMISSIBILITY AGUSTÍN BLADIMIRO ZEGARRA MARÍN PERU March 19, 2009 I. SUMMARY 1. On May 16, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged on his own behalf by Mr. Agustín Bladimiro Zegarra Marín (hereinafter also “the petitioner” or “the alleged victim”) in which he alleged that the Republic of Peru (hereinafter also “Peru,” “the State,” or “the Peruvian State”) violated the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the American Convention,” “the Convention,” or “the ACHR”). 2. The petitioner said that in 1994, he was prosecuted for the alleged commission of crimes against public documents in his capacity as a commander in the National Police (hereinafter also “the PNP”), and that those proceedings concluded with his conviction. He claimed that during the proceedings he was illegally detained and several judicial guarantees were violated, most particularly the presumption of innocence. He also stated that during his criminal trial, the PNP forced him into retirement without prior administrative proceedings and without grounded reasons. With regard to the admissibility requirements, he claimed that he filed remedies for the annulment and review of his conviction, but that those appeals were ruled inadmissible. He also stated that he filed for the reconsideration and annulment of the decision to force him into retirement, to which no favorable response was given. 3. In turn, the State of Peru argued that the criminal prosecution of the alleged victim was undertaken because of evidence of his guilt and that the proceedings observed the guarantees of due process. It also stated that the petitioner had access to all legal remedies for establishing his legal situation. Regarding his forced retirement, the State noted in its most recent communication that in accordance with Law 28805, a formal apology was extended to the alleged victim and the amount of his pension was increased, but his reinstatement was not possible since he had passed the retirement age for his rank. 4. After examining the parties’ positions in light of the admissibility requirements set out in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission concluded that it is competent to hear the claim and that the petition is admissible as regards the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligations set out in Article 1.1 thereof. The Commission also concluded that the petition is inadmissible as regards the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 24 of the American Convention. Consequently, the Commission resolved to notify the parties, to publish this report on admissibility, and to include it in its Annual Report. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. On May 16, 2000, the initial petition was received and was registered as No. P-235/00. 6. On December 18, 2000, July 20 and November 6, 2001, the petitioner submitted additional information. 7. In a communication dated December 18, 2000, the petitioner lodged a request for precautionary measures, specifically for the Commission to order the voiding of Supreme Resolution No. 0037-95-IN-PNP whereby he was forced into retirement. 1