18 11 the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereinafter “the CVR”), published on August 27, 2003, in the city of Lima and placed before the three branches of the Peruvian State, the Attorney General’s office and other agencies of the public administration and proceed to the determination of the scope of state responsibility and the resulting 12 violations of the American Convention. A. Considerations as to Fact: Established Facts 106. In June 1991, an extension was decreed of the State of Emergency in the Department of Huancavelica, suspending exercise of the rights of inviolability of the home, free movement, assembly, and not to 13 be detained except by a judicial order or in flagrante delicto. A curfew from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. was imposed in the city of Huancavelica. In its final report, the CVR explained that during that time, members of the Army or military patrols, on the pretext of maintaining order at night, would enter the homes of villagers, steal their 14 belongings and animals, and, in some instances, even committed murder and rape. 107. On July 2, 1991, two military patrols (“Escorpio” commanded by Infantry Lieutenant Javier Bendezú Vargas, and “Angel” under the command of Lieutenant Abel Gallo Coca) set out from Lircay and Santa Teresita 15 military bases to carry out Operation Apolonia, aimed at apprehending and/or destroying terrorist elements that 16 were operating in the Rodeo Pampa area (Community of Santa Barbara) , which was regarded by the Army as a “red zone” after the presence was reportedly detected of members of subversive groups that made incursions into 17 nearby mines and nearby villages . A deserter from the Shining Path, the child P.C.M., also known as “Félix”, 18 acted as a guide in the above operation. 11 The CVR’s Final Report has been used by the Commission in a series of cases, as well as by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in ruling on facts and the international responsibility of the Peruvian State in the following matters: Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C No. 167; Case of La Cantuta, Judgment of November 29, 2006, Series C No. 162; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160; Case of Baldeón García, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147; Gómez Palomino Case, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 136; and Case of De la Cruz Flores, Judgment of November 18, 2004, Series C No. 115. 12 This placement was done In compliance with the mandate given by the President of the Republic in Supreme Decrees 065-2001-PCM and 101-2001-PCM. According to these Decrees, the CVR’s purpose was to establish the facts and responsibilities of the terrorist violence and human rights violations that were carried out between May 1980 and November 2000 by both the terrorist organizations and the agencies of the State, and to propose initiatives intended to ensure peace and harmony among the people of Peru. 13 Appendix 1. Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru. Volume VII. Chapter 2: Cases Investigated by the CVR 2.50. The Extrajudicial Executions in Santa Barbara: Context and Conclusions. 14 Appendix 1. Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru. Volume VII. Chapter 2: Cases Investigated by the CVR 2.50. The Extrajudicial Executions in Santa Barbara: Context. 15 Appendix 1. Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru. Volume VII. Chapter 2: Cases Investigated by the CVR 2.50. The Extrajudicial Executions in Santa Barbara: Context. 16 Appendix 30. Judgment of October 16, 1992, Second Army Judicial District. Appendix to the State’s brief of December 29, 2000. 17 Appendix 30. Judgment of October 16, 1992, Second Army Judicial District. Appendix to the State’s brief of December 29, 2000. 18 Appendix 30. Judgment of October 16, 1992, Second Army Judicial District. Appendix to the State’s brief of December 29, 2000.