2 2. The Commission submitted the petition for the Court to decide if the State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 (Right to Life) and 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same, in detriment of “at least 42” inmates that died; the violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, in detriment of “at least 175” inmates that were injured and of 322 inmates “that having resulted [allegedly] uninjured were submitted to a cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment;” and for the violation of Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) of the same, in detriment of [the [alleged] victims and their next of kin.” 3. The facts presented by the Commission in the application occurred as of May 6, 1992 and they refer to the execution of “Operative Transfer 1” within the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, during which the State, allegedly, caused the death of at least 42 inmates, injured 175 inmates, and submitted another 322 inmates to a cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The facts also refer to the alleged cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment experimented by the alleged victims after “Operative Transfer 1”. 4. Likewise, the Commission requested that the Court, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation indicated in the petition. Finally, it requested that the Tribunal order the State to pay the costs and expenses generated in the processing of the case. II COMPETENCE 5. The Court is competent to hear the present case, in the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, since Peru is a State Party in the American Convention since July 28, 1978 and it acknowledged the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. Similarly, the State ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on March 28, 1991 and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent, Punish, and Eradicate Violence against Women on June 4, 1996. III PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION 6. On May 18, 1992 Mrs. Sabina Astete presented a petition before the InterAmerican Commission,1 which is signed by the persons who indicate they are members of the Committee of Relatives of Political and War Prisoners. Said petition was identified under number 11,015, and it referred to the alleged “genocide of May 6 through 9, 1992” that took place at the Criminal Center Castro Castro and the lack of information “to the next of kin and public opinion” regarding the survivors, those dead, and the injured. Likewise, it referred to alleged “clandestine transfer[s] to 1 In response to the request of evidence and clarifications to facilitate adjudication of the case made by the President of the Court, the Commission indicated in its communication of November 3, 2006 that this writ of May 18, 1992 was “the initial petition that started the case 11,015.”

Select target paragraph3