-31B.3. Other arguments with regard to the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees
and to judicial protection
127. With respect to the arguments of the representatives on the impossibility to contest
the decision and the limitation established in the legislation on the proportionality of sentences
for the type of acts analyzed in this case (supra para. 96, (g) and (h)), the Court notes that
they do not explain why these provisions in the domestic legal order are contrary to the
American Convention.
128. As to the arguments of the Commission and the representatives on the application of
the amnesty law and the submission of the case to the military jurisdiction (supra para. 96,
(c) and (d)), the Court refers to its analysis on the impact that these had on a reasonable
time (supra paras. 109 to 111 and 114 to 116) and does not consider them to be autonomous
violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, since both the amnesty law and the military
jurisdiction had ceased to be obstacles to resolve the case judicially.
129. With regard to the arguments of the representatives on the lack of proportionality of
the sentence and on serving the full sentence (supra para. 96, (e) and (f)), the Court notes
that they offer no reasons why those actions would be violations of the Amerian Convention.
130. As to the argument of the representatives on why the other possibly responsible
persons were not tried (supra para. 96, i)), the Court notes that the Public Ministry conducted
an effective investigation and decided to only prosecute Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo as the person
who fired on the microbus and not his superior nor the soldier who was with him. There was
no evidence nor any allegations that inidicated that the Public Ministry had taken that decision
on fraudulent grounds or in collusion with the involved parties.126
131. Therefore, the Court finds that the State is not responsible for the violation of the
rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection for the actions related to the
aforementioned arguments (supra paras. 127 to 130).
VIII-2.
THE RIGHTS TO LIFE AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF ZULEMA TARAZONA ARRIETA,
NORMA PÉREZ CHÁVEZ AND OF LUÍS BEJARANO LAURA
(Articles 4 and 5(1) of the American Convention)
A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission
132. The Commission concluded that Peru had violated Article 4(1) of the Convention, in
relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez
and Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr.
Bejarano Laura, because: a) on August 4, 1994, a soldier caused the deaths of Ms. Tarazona
Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez and wounded Mr. Bejarano Laura; b) during the military
operation neither the interception of vehicles nor the use of arms was authorized and for
which there was no justification, and c) the lack of a diligent investigation during the first
stage of the criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the Commission considered that the violation
had been partially remedied since the accused had been tried and convicted by the competent
jurisdictional authorities and non-pecuniary compensation had been paid to the next of kin of
the deceased victims and to Mr. Bejarano Laura, pursuant to the decision of the domestic
court of July 23, 2008.
The evidence shows that the superior of the accused, A.N.C.C., was punished with eight days of detention
for the failure to control the personnel under his command. Cf. Statement of A.N.C.C. of July 15, 2003 (evidence file,
folios 260 to 265).
126