Mrs. Astete sent additional information on October 16, 2000 and on December 4, 2000 submitted her observations on the new petition filed by Dr. Doebbler. Combining case 11.769-B with case 11.015 8. On June 5, 1997, the Commission received a petition filed by Dr. Curtis Doebbler, representing Mrs. Mónica Feria-Tinta. The petition alleged that she had been arrested, tortured and imprisoned in the Castro Castro prison. It also denounced the events that transpired at that prison in May 1992, when Mrs. Feria-Tinta was an inmate there. 9. The case was opened on July 8, 1997, and the pertinent parts of the petition were forwarded to the State, which was given 90 days in which to submit information on the case. The State has never responded to that request. 10. On November 20, 1997, Dr. Fiona McKay submitted to the Commission a power of attorney wherein Mrs. Mónica Feria-Tinta names her as her representative in the instant case. 11. On March 31, 2000, Mrs. Feria-Tinta informed the Commission that she was revoking the power of attorney that she had given to Dr. Curtis Doebbler. She also stated that henceforth, her sole representative would be Dr. Fiona McKay.3 12. On June 29, 2000, in accordance with Article 40(1) of its Regulations, the Commission decided to divide case 11.769 into two new cases, identified as case 11.769-A and case 11.769-B. It also decided that thereafter, the petition that originated case 11.769, on the detention, trial and other allegations that directly and personally concerned attorney Mónica Feria-Tinta, would be case 11.769-A. The Commission also agreed that thereafter, the other allegations made in the petition that led to case 11.769, i.e., those that concerned the events that transpired at Castro-Castro prison in May 1992, would be addressed in case 11.769-B. 13. At the same time, the Commission also decided to combine case 11.769-B with case 11.015, and to continue to process both as case 11.015, pursuant to Article 40(2) of the Commission’s Regulations. The parties were duly notified of the Commission’s decision. III. A POSITION OF THE PARTIES Position of the petitioners (Sabina Astete and Mónica Feria-Tinta) 14. The petitioners allege that at 4:30 a.m. on May 6, 1992, some 500 Army troops stormed cellblock “1A” of Miguel Castro Castro prison, by air and overland, carrying heavy weaponry like rifles, anti-tank weapons, grenades, dynamite and plastic explosives. Their plan was to move prisoners to the Santa Mónica prison. The petitioners contend that the operation amounted to an attack upon the prisoners, carried out in the predawn hours with no prior warning. Its opening move was demolition of the cellblock “1A”. 15. The petitioners further allege that the attack on the prison went on throughout May 7, 8 and 9, 1992. They reported that because the prisoners had put up resistance and had moved to cellblock “4B”, the government ordered deployment of 1000 troops–a combination of Army and special police units-to launch a final assault on the cellblock. 3 On June 29, 2000, the Commission sent a letter to Dr. Curtis Doebbler to the following effect: “On September 28, 1996, Mrs. Mónica Feria-Tinta gave you power of attorney to represent her. In that capacity, you filed a petition with the Commission dated June 5, 1997. In that petition, you stated that the petitioner in the case was Mrs. Mónica FeriaTinta and you signed the petition as her legal representative. You further stated that you were acting as her representative by virtue of that power of attorney. Although in the original petition you stated that you were representing other victims as well, the petitioner in this case is Mrs. Feria-Tinta, and throughout the process you have repeatedly stated that you are serving as her legal representative. Given these facts and as required under Article 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Commission has, since the start of the proceedings on this case, recognized Mrs. Feria-Tinta as the petitioner, wherein the alleged victims are Mrs. Feria-Tinta and the other persons named in the original petition. For these reasons, given the situation, the Inter-American Commission must defer to the petitioner’s wishes that the power of attorney she gave you to represent her in the case in question be revoked and your representation thereby terminated. All this without prejudice to the other alleged victims’ right to designate you as their representative vis-à-vis the Commission.” 2