Report No. 57 (2009) IACHR. Petition No. 173-00 (Perú)

• Report Number: 57
• Petition Number: 173-00
• Case Type: Archive
• Respondent State: Perú
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Jorge Ramos Olivos

REPORT No. 57/09 DECISION TO ARCHIVE PETITION 173-00 PERU March 27, 2009 ALLEGED VICTIM: Jorge Ramos Olivos PETITIONERS: FEDEPAZ (Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo and la Paz) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) ALLEGED VIOLATIONS: Articles 5, 7, and 8 of the American Convention, taken in concordance with Article 1(1) of that international instrument DATE OF INITIAL PROCESSING: October 2, 2002 I. POSITION OF THE PETITIONERS 1. The petitioners contend that the alleged victim was detained on January 17, 1996, for the alleged commission of the crime of treason against the State. They allege that the accusations originated with other detainees who were known as “the repentant ones” and that the trial was conducted with serious violations of the alleged victim’s procedural guarantees, which included: violation of the presumption of innocence; violation of the right to be informed beforehand of the nature and cause of the accusation; violation of the right to question witnesses; violation of the right to be tried by an independent and impartial court; and violation of the right to full equal treatment under law. The petitioners contend that on June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court upheld, in last instance, a 15-year sentence of imprisonment. II. POSITION OF THE STATE 2. At its first available opportunity, the State answered that the alleged victim had been pardoned on March 15, 2001, and thus granted his freedom. Accordingly, the State asked that the petition be declared inadmissible, inasmuch as the facts underlying the petition no longer subsist. III. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 3. On April 19, 2000, the initial petition was received and assigned case No. P-173-00. On October 2, 2002, the petition was transmitted to the Peruvian State, which was asked to submit its response within a period of two months. The State’s response was received on December 13, 2002, and transmitted to the petitioners on December 17, 2002, which were asked to present any pertinent observations within a period of 45 days. On July 23, 2003, the Commission asked the petitioners to submit updated information to determine if the motives underlying the petition subsisted. In this communication, the petitioners were notified that if such information was not received within a period of one month, the Commission may archive the case in accordance with Article 48(1)(b) of the American Convention. IV. GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION TO ARCHIVE 4. Both Article 48(b) of the American...