Report No. 55 (2009) IACHR. Petition No. 11.315 (Perú)

• Petition Number: 11.315
• Report Number: 55
• Case Type: Archive
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Respondent State: Perú
• Alleged Victim: Rosa Luz Padilla Baca

REPORT No. 55/09; DECISION TO ARCHIVE CASE 11.315 PERU March 27, 2009 ALLEGED VICTIM: Rosa Luz P.B. PETITIONER: Rosa Mercedes Baca Vera ALLEGED VIOLATIONS: Not specified, but inferred are violations of the guarantees enshrined in Articles 8 and 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights DATE OF INITIAL PROCESSING: J. 28, 1994 I. POSITION OF THE PETITIONER 1. The petitioner contends that the alleged victim was prosecuted in two criminal trials on the charge of terrorism, in violation of her judicial guarantees. The petitioner alleges that in the first trial, the Supreme Court imposed a sentence that was inappropriate, in sentencing the victim as a leader of the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA), although it was not proven that the victim was an activist of that organization. In addition, the petitioner pointed out that during this trial Ms. Padilla’s right to a defense was curtailed, since her attorney was not given an opportunity to address the court in support of a remedy of annulment. The petitioner indicates that in the second trial the alleged victim was sentenced to a 20-year term of imprisonment, despite the fact that her innocence had been proven. Records of the domestic appeals provided mention alleged acts of torture during her detention, as well as the fact that some decisions were handed down by “faceless tribunals” that retroactively applied the law in her sentencing. 2. In response to the S. argument, the petitioner indicated that although an appeal based on procedural violations was still pending in one trial, a final enforceable judgment had already been rendered in the other. The petitioner alleges that the worst due process violations were committed during the second trial. II. POSITION OF THE STATE 3. The S. alleges that Ms. P.B. was tried and sentenced in accordance with regular procedures provided under Peruvian legislation for crimes of terrorism and those against the public trust. It emphasized that a decision was still pending on a remedy of annulment against the above-mentioned sentence. In this regard, the S. argued that the domestic appeals process had not yet been exhausted. III. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4. On J. 22, 1994, the initial petition was received and assigned case No. 11.315. On J. 28, 1994, the petition was transmitted to the S., which was asked to submit its response within a period of three months. The S.s response was received on September 8, 1994, and forwarded to the petitioner on October 6, 1994, which was asked to submit any pertinent observation within a period of 45 days. The petitioner presented her observation on December 7, 1994, which was transmitted to the S. on December 29, 1994, asking that it submit its observations within one month. On March 16, 1995, the S. submitted its observations. On January 7, 2003, the IACHR asked the petitioner to update the information in the petition within a period of one month. On April 5, 2004, the IACHR asked the petitioner to notify it if the facts alleged in the petition subsisted. In this communication, the petitioner was given notice that if no reply were received, the Commission may consider archiving...