3
Rommel Darwin Anzualdo Castro. As a result of the above mentioned, the
Commission requested to the Court that the State be required to take certain
measures of reparation and reimburse the costs and expenses.
4.
On October 19, 2008, Mrs. Gloria Cano and Mr. Jorge Abrego, of the
Association for Human Rights (APRODEH), Mrs. Viviana Krsticevic, Ariela Peralta and
Alejandra Vicente and Mr. Francisco Quintana, of the Center for Justice and
International Law (CEJIL) (hereinafter, the "representatives"), submitted a brief
containing pleadings, motions and evidence with the Court, under the terms of Article
23 of the Rules of Procedure (infra para. 7). In this brief, they referred to the facts
mentioned in the application by the Commission and considered that such facts were
framed within “a systematic practice of forced disappearances at the hands of state
agents, […] conducted selectively against university students, among others; […]
[which] was well-known and consented by the highest-ranking authorities of the
state’s government.” As a result, the representatives requested the Court to declare
the international responsibility of the State for the same violations of the Convention
as alleged by the Commission and, also, for the violation of Article 13 of the American
Convention, which, according to them, conforms the right to the truth to the
detriment of the next-of-kin of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro and "the Peruvian
society as a whole", as well as the non-compliance with the obligation to adequately
classify the crime of forced disappearance, under the terms of Articles I (d), II and III
of the Inter-American Convention of Forced Disappearance of People, and also
embodied in Article 2 of the American Convention. Finally, the representatives
requested the Court to order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation and to
reimburse costs and expenses.
5.
On December 22, 2008, the State of Peru filed the response to the petition,
the observations to the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence and the
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies after considering that
“even though there has been a delay in the processing of the case […], there is a
complaint […] processed by the Third Supranational Public Prosecutor’s Office” in
relation to the facts of this case. Furthermore, the State requested the Court to
“define the boundaries of the State’s liability, as attributed to it by the Inter-American
Commission in the petition, for the [f]orced disappearance [of the alleged victim…]”,
given the fact that “said disappearance has not been at the hand of the [P]eruvian
[s]tate [a]gents, but the terrorist group Sendero Luminoso.” The State indicated that
it is not responsible for the alleged violations and therefore, “cannot repair the nextof-kin for the alleged damage caused" or comply with the measures of reparations so
requested. The State appointed Mr. Jaime José Vales Carrillo as Agents in the instant
case, who was. later on replaced by Delia Muñoz Muñoz, Supranational Specialized
Attorney General of Peru.
6.
In accordance with Article 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, on February 6 and
9, 2009 the Commission and the representatives, respectively, presented the written
arguments on the preliminary objection raised by the State.

II
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT
7.
The application was served on the State and the representatives via facsimile
on August 14, 2008. During the proceeding before this Tribunal, apart from the main
briefs submitted by the parties (supra paras. 1 to 5), the Court’s President

Select target paragraph3