-39and respect and preserve human life, and c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are
rendered to any injured or affected person.”146
166. The same Basic Principles indicate that the “rules and regulations on the use of
firearms by law enforcement officials should include guidelines that […] b) firearms are used
only in appropriate circumstances and in a manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary
harm […] d) Regulate the control, storage and issuance of firearms, including procedures for
ensuring that law enforcement officials are accountable for the firearms and ammunition
issued to them.”147
167. An examination of these norms shows that the State did not adapt its domestic
regulations to the Basic Priniciples for preventive and precautionary measures on the use of
force. Specifically, the domestic norms on the use of force by State agents did not contain
provisions of precautionary and preventive measures, nor on “assistance and medical aid […]
to any injured or affected person.” In addition, the incident in this case shows that Sgt.
Evangelista Pinedo did not take the necessary precautions to avoid firing his rifle148 nor that
neither he nor his colleague on the patrol aided the injured after the shooting and, therefore,
the failure to adapt the domestic normative could have had an impact on this specific case.
168. With respect to the domestic normative on the use of force after the incident and,
specifically, with respect to Legislative Decree N° 1095 of 2009,149 the Court will not analyze
it nor its incompatibility with the Convention because that norm did not exist when the incident
occurred and, therefore, it was not applied in the present case. In addition, the Court notes
that the constitutionality of that Decree is being challenged.150
169. Consequently, the Court finds that the State is responsible for having violated, at the
time of the incident, its obligation to adapt its domestic law on precautionary and preventive
measures in the exercise of the use of force and on the assistance to injured or affected
persons, in violation of Article 2 of the Convention, in relation to the rights to life and personal
integrity contained in Articles 4 and 5 thereof, to the detriment of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta, Ms.
Pérez Chávez and Mr. Bejarano Laura.
IX.
REPARATIONS
(Application of Article 63.1 of the American Convention)
170. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention, 151 the Court has held that
any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted at the Eighth
Congress of the United Nations on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of the Offender, Havana, Cuba, August
27 to September 7, 1990, Principles 2 and 5.
146
147
Basic Priniciples of 1990, Principle 11.
148
Decision of the National Criminal Chamber of July 23, 2008 (evidence file, folio 61).
Legislative Decree N° 1095, which “establishes rules for the use of force by the Armed Forces in the national
territory” of August 31, 2010 (evidence file, folios 4961 to 4965).
149
150
Writ of unconstitutionality of December 19, 2011 (evidence file, folios 3757 to 3795).
Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation
of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the
enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the
measure or situation that constituted the breach of such rights be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to
the injured party.”
151