Inter-American Court of Human Rights

125 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., note 6, para. 154. See also, U.N., Rome Statute of the International Criminal Courts), approved by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 183/9 July 17, 1998, Article 20; Statute of the International CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia, S/Res/827, 1993, Article 10, and the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, S/RES/955, November 8, 1994, Article 9.

126 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., note 6, para. 154; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 98, and Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 131.

127 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 122; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 55, and Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 61 and 62. Similarly, cf. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Adali v. Turkey, Judgment of 31 March 2005, Application No. 38187/97, para. 216, and Avsar v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 July 2001, Application No. 25657/94, para. 284.

128 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 110; Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 110, para. 141, and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 41.

129 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 84 and 131. In connection with the duty to investigate crimes against humanity, specifically murder committed as part of a systematic practice, see also Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 99 and 111.

130 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para 131.

131 Since he left Perú in November 2000 until November 2005, Alberto Fujimori stayed in Japan, to which Perú requested his extradition on various grounds, including the events of La Cantuta. On January 3 2006, after Alberto Fujimori Fujimori entered Chile, the Peruvian Embassy in that country filed five requests for extradition —including the one referred to the events of La Cantuta—, which led to the current extradition case proceeding before Chile's Supreme Court of Justice (supra para 80(86) to 80.(92)).

132 Cf. Charter of the Organization of American States, Preamble and Article 3(3), Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Perons; and Resolution No. 1/03 of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights on the trial of international crimes.

133 Cf. Charter of the United Nations signed June 26, 1945, Preamble and Article 1(3); Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed under General Assembly Resolution 217 A (iii) of December 10, 1948; United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI) of December 16, 1966; Geneva conventions of August 12, 1949 and its Protocols; Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, General Assembly 2391 (XXIII) of November 26, 1968; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, resolution 260 A (III), General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of December 9, 1948; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, General Assembly resolution 39/46 of December 10, 1984; Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (sic), G.A. Res. 47/133, 47 U.N. GAOR Supp. (no. 49) at 207, U.N. Doc. A/47/49 (1992), Article 14; Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, E.S.C. Res. 1989/65, U.N. Doc. E/1989/89 para. 18 (May 24, 1989); Principles of International Co-Operation in the Detection, Arrest, Extradition and Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, G. A. Res. 3074, U.N. Doc. A/9030 (1973); Resolution on the Question of the Punishment of War Criminals and of Persons who have Committed Crimes Against Humanity, G.A. Res. 2840, U.N. Doc. A/Res/2840 (1971); 1996 Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind of the International Law Commission; Draft International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, United Nations Human Rights Council, 1^st session, business No. 4 of the agenda, A/HRC/1/L.2, June 22, 2006; Declaration on Territorial Asylum, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, resolution 2312 (XXII) of December 14, 1967; and United Nations Convention on the Statute of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, adopted on July 18, 1951 by the the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Statute of Refugees and Stateless, convened by the General Assembly through resolution 429 (V), of December 14, 1950.

134 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, paras. 128 to 132.

135 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos, supra note 125, para. 41 to 44 and fourth operative paragraph.

136 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. (Article 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, para. 18 and second operative paragraph.

137 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 114.

138Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 117; Case of “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2994. Series C No. 112, para. 205, and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 140.

139 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 139, para. 205; Case of Bulacio, supra note 139, para. 142, and Case of the “Five Pensioners” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 164.

140 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 139, para. 205.

141 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arrellano et al., supra note 6, para. 118; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 83, and Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 85.

142 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.), supra note 142, para. 87 to 90.

143 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 128, para. 96 to 98, and Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 113.

144 Cf. Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 91, 93 and 94.

145Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arrellano et al., supra note 6, para. 118, and Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 128, para. 87.

146 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arrellano et al., supra note 6, paras. 123 to 125.

147 Cf. Case of Barrios-Altos, supra note 125, para. 44.

148 Cf. sworn statement effected before a pulic official by expert Samuel Bernardo Abad-Yupanqui on August 17, 2006 (record of sworn statements effected before public officials, page 3531).

149 The defense of amnesty raised by Ángel Arturo Pino-Díaz in the Case of Pedro Yauri Bustamante (Case No. 044-2002) was dismissed as groundless by the Segundo Juzgado Penal Especializado (Second Specialized Criminal Trial Court) on October 20, 2004, making express reference to the Case of Barrios Altos; in the same case, the Segundo Juzgado Penal Especializado (Second Criminal Specialized Criminal Trial Court) dismissed as groundless the amnesty defense raised by Hector Gamarra-Mamani making refrence to the Case of Barrios Altos; in the same case, the Quinto Juzgado Penal Especializado (Fifth Specialized Criminal Trial Court) dismissed the amnesty defense raised by José Enrique Ortiz-Mantas as groundless on November 12, 2004; in the Case of El Frontón (Case No. 125-04) the Judge of the Primer Juzgado Supraprovincial de Lima (First Supra-Provincial Court in and for Lima) dismissed the amnesty defense raised by the defendants as groundless.

150 In the Case of Pedro Yauri Bustamante (Case No. 044-2002), the statute of limitations defense raised by Máximo Humberto Cáceda-Pedemonte was dismissed as groundless on February 24, 2003 by the Specialized Associate Provincial Prosecutor; in the Consolidated Case of Barrios Altos, La Cantuta, Pedro Yauri and El Santa la (Case no. 032-2001), the Quinto Juzgado Penal Especializado (Fifth Specialized Criminal Trial Court) dismissed as groundless the statute of limitations defense raised by Shirley Sandra Rojas-Castro; on October 1, 2003, the Provincial Criminal Prosecutor of Lima dismissed as groundless the statute of limitations defense raised by Marco Flores-Alvan; Superior Criminal Judge of Lima dismissed as groundless the double jeopardy defense raised by Shirley Sandra Rojas-Castro in her decision of December 13, 2004.

151 In the Case of Pedro Yauri Bustamante (Case No. 044-2002), the Segundo Juzgado Penal Especializado (Second Specialized Criminal Trial Court dismissed as groundless the double jeopardy defense raised by Orlando Ver—Navarrete; in the Consolidated Case of Barrios Altos, La Cantuta, Pedro Yauri and El Santa la (Case No. 032-2001), the Superior Criminal Judge of Lima dismissed as groundless the double jeopardy defense raised by Nelson Carvajal-García on December 7, 2004.

152In the Case of Chuschi Authorities (Case No. 023-2003), Civil and Criminal Judge of Cangallo directed the opening of a criminal prosecution against Collins Collantes-Guerra and others for the commission of the crimes of kidnapping and forced disappearance, making reference to the non-applicability of the self-amnesty laws; in the Case of El Frontón (Case 125-04), the Judge of the Primer Juzgado Supraprovincial de Lima) First Supraprovincial Trial Court in and for Lima) dismissed as groundless the defense of amnesty raised by the defendants.

153 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court, File No. 4587-2004-AA/TC, of November 29, 2005 (case of Santiago Martín Rivas), para. 63.

154 Cf. Law No. 28,237, Code of Constitucional Procedure, Publisher on May 31, 2004.

155 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case of Orlando Vera-Navarrete, File No. 2798-04-HC/TC, of December 9, 2004, para. 8.

156 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case of Arturo Castillo-Chirinos, File No. 2730-06-PA/TC, of July 21, 2006, paras. 12 and 13.

157 In the fifth operative paragraph of that Judgment, the Court ordered that “the Peruvian State must effect […] the following non-monetary reparations: […] (a) to enforce the Court’s interpretation of the judgment on the merits “concerning the meaning and scope of the declaration of ineffectiveness of Laws No. 26,479 and [No.] 26,492” (Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Reparations (Article 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 75, fifth operative paragraph).

158Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 140; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 115, and Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 208.

159Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 141; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 209; and Case of Ituango Massacress, supra note 8, para. 346.

160 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 141; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 117, and Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 209.

161 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 142; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 117, y Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 209.

162 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 136; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 142; and Case of Baldeón-García. Judgment of April 06, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 176.

163 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 143; Caso Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 118; and Caso Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 210.

164 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 150; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 126, and^. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 220.

165 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 156; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 130; and Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 227.

166 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 157; Case of the Ituango Massacress, supra note 8, para. 384, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 255.

167Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 159; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 132(b); and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 257.

168 So was found in other cases as well, also with regard to the daughters, sons, spouse, common-law spouse, mother and father, among others. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 159; Case of the Ituango Massacress, supra note 8, para. 386; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 257.

169Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 161; Case of Vargas-Areco, supra note 1, para. 150; and Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 160.

170Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 160; Case of the Ituango Massacress, supra note 8, para. 390; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 258.

171 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 164; Case of the Ituango Massacress, supra note 8, para. 399, and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 163, para. 195.

172 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 164; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 245; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 266.

173 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 164; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 266; and Cases of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 100, para. 95.

174 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 150.

175 Cf. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Sentencing Judgment, November 29, 1996, at para. 28:

Crimes against humanity are serious acts of violence which harm human beings by striking what is most essential to them: their life, liberty, physical welfare, health, and or dignity. They are inhumane acts that by their extent and gravity go beyond the limits tolerable to the international community, which must perforce demand their punishment. But crimes against humanity also transcend the individual because when the individual is assaulted, humanity comes under attack and is negated. It is therefore the concept of humanity as victim which essentially characterizes crimes against humanity.

176Cf. U.N., Extradition and punishment of war criminals, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution 3 (I) of February 13, 1946; Affirmation of the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nurnberg Tribunal, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution 95 (I) of December 11, 1946; Surrender of war criminals and traitors, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution 170 (II) of October 31, 1947; Question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution 2338 (XXII) of December 18, 1967; Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by Resolution 2391 (XXIII) of November 25, 1968; Question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by Resolution 2712 (XXV) of December 14, 1970; Question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by Resolution 2840 (XXVI) of December 18, 1971; and Crime Prevention and Control, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by Resolution 3021 (XXVII) of December 18, 1972.

177The General Assembly stated that the “thorough investigation” of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the punishment of those responsible for such crimes “constitute an important element in the prevention of such crimes, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the encouragement of confidence, the furtherance of co-operation among peoples and the promotion of international peace and security.” Cf. U.N., Question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by Resolution 2583 (XXIV) of December 15, 1969.

178 “War crimes and crimes against humanity, wherever they are committed, shall be subject to investigation and the persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed such crimes shall be subject to tracing, arrest, trial and, if found guilty, to punishment. […] States shall not take any legislative or other measures which may be prejudicial to the international obligations they have assumed in regard to the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity” (U.N., Principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crime against humanity, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution 3074 (XXVIII) of December 03, 1973).

179Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by Resolution 2391 (XXIII) of November 26, 1968. Entry into force: November 11, 1970.

180 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 154.

181 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 139; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 163, para. 199; and Case of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 100, para. 97.

182Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. supra note 1, para. 171; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, paras. 270-273; and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 110, para. 265.

183 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. supra note 1, para. 171 Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 110, para. 265 and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 98, para. 187.

184Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. supra note 1, para. 171; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 163, para. 208; and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 16, para. 315.

185 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. supra note 1, para. 175; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia), supra note 97, para. 151; and Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 249.

186 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia), supra note 97, para. 147.

187Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. supra note 1, para. 180; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia), supra note 97, para. 152; and Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 252.

188Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. supra note 1, para. 162; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 240; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 163, para. 192.

189 U. Jara, Ojo por Ojo - La Verdadera Historia del Grupo Colina (The True Story of the Colina Group), Lima, Edit. Norma, 2003, pp. 59-60; and cf. pp. 75, 78, 88 and 124, for the “learnt lessons” by the murderers at the Escuela de las Américas.

190