Inter-American Court of Human Rights

VIII

International State Responsibility within the context of this case
81. The events under review in this case have a particularly adverse impact because of the historic context within which they have taken place —systematic practice of illegal and arbitrary detentions, torture, extra-legal executions and forced disappearances perpetrated by State security and intelligence forces, the characteristics and dynamics of which were outlined based on proven facts (above paras. 80(1)-80(8)). In other words, those severe facts fall within the systematic mechanism of repression to which certain sectors of the population were subjected as they had been labeled as subversive or somehow contrary or in opposition to the Government, which was known to or even ordered by the highest command of the armed forced, the intelligence services and the then governing Executive, by means of the State’s ordinary security forces, the operation of the so-called “Grupo Colina” and a framework of impunity favoring these violations.
82. The particular severity of these incidents unveils the existence of a whole structure of organized power and encoded procedures ruling the practice of extra-legal execution and forced disappearance. By no means were these incidents isolated or sporadic instances, but they constituted a pattern of conduct prevailing over the time these events took place as a method for the elimination of members of, and individuals suspected of cooperating with, subversive organizations, used systematically and in a generalized fashion by state actors —mostly by members of the Armed Forces.
83. Owing to its decisive role in this case, regard must be had to the participation of the so-called Colina Group, which was entrusted by the very command of the armed forces with a governmental policy for the identification, control and elimination of those persons suspected of cooperating with insurgent groups, by means of systematic and indiscriminate extra-legal executions, selective murder, forced disappearance and torture. The group was organized directly as part of the hierarchical structure of the Peruvian Army, and its activities and operations were —according to several sources— known to the Presidency of the Peruvian Republic and the Army Command (above paras. 80(17)and 80(18)).
84. This situation has likewise been considered in other cases decided by this Tribunal, the events of which took place over the same time-span as the ones involved in this case. Thus, this Court has passed its decision regarding the systematic practice carried out under the orders of the military and police officers in charge, the existence and methods used by the Colina Group, and their responsibility for said events.⁸² Regarding to the characteristics of the events in La Cantuta over the referenced period,⁸³ said context was also ratified by the Inter-American Commission, and by the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations on Extra-legal or Summary Executions, after his visit to Perú in 1993.⁸⁴
85. Furthermore, the foregoing Peruvian context and situations have been acknowledged by the convergent decisions adopted by the three powers of the State: the Executive, as it has acknowledged the State’s international responsibility in this international procedure (above paras. 40-4), and before that, with the creation of the CVR and the “Ad Hoc State Prosecutor’s Office for the Cases of Montesinos and Fujimori, and those that should be held responsible,”⁸⁵ the Judiciary and the Legislature.
86. In this regard, the creation of the CVR is of utmost importance. As it is pointed out in the final report of the CVR, after the “fall of the Fujimori Administration […] one of the first actions taken by the transitory government, in December 2001, was the creation of the Inter-Institutional Workgroup leading to the establishment of the Truth Commission with the participation of the Ministries of Justice, the Interior, Defense, Promotion of Women and Human Development, the People’s Ombudsman, the Peruvian Episcopal Conference the Peruvian Evangelist Association, and the National Human Rights Coordinating Committee […] The Inter-institutional Workgroup suggested that the CVR should review crimes attributable to all the parties to the conflict, that is, «both the events attributable to State agents, events attributable to individuals who acted with State agents’ consent, acquiescence or connivance, as well as those events that are attributable to subversive groups». […] No modification was made to the timeframe of the CVR’s competence suggested by [that] group […], and it was so expressed in the final version of its mandate. In fact, the Supreme Decree approved by the Council of Ministries [in 2001] included the suggestion that the events that occurred between 1980 and 2000 should fall within the scope of the investigations […] No relevant change was made to the subject matter of the CVR’s competence throughout both of the preparation stages either. In fact, all the crimes indicated by the Work Group […] were contemplated in the Supreme Decree.”⁸⁶
87. In connection with the abovementioned context, according to the CVR, as of the coup d’etat of April 5, 1992:
There was established a de facto regime that suspended the democratic institutional structure of the country by the overt intervention in the Judiciary, the Constitutional Tribunal, the Public Ministry and other constitutional bodies. Actions of governance were implemented by means of executive orders passed by the so-called «Government of National Reconstruction and Emergency» entrusted with both executive and legislative functions of the State for a short time, thus neutralizing in practice the political and judicial control over its actions. In the light of the most recent judicial investigation, it can be concluded further that during this time State resources were used to organize, train and engage operative groups under cover, whose main objective was the murder, disappearance and torture of persons, all of which was carried out under the halo of the National Intelligence Service. This is explained in the case of the self-called «Grupo Colina»⁸⁷
88. In fact, it was in the final report of the CVR on which the Inter-American Commission extensively based the allegations of its application —allegations which were in turn acknowledged by the State in these proceedings (above paras. 40 to 46 and 80(1) to 80(8)). The CVR also identified the existence of a pattern, the modus operandi and encoded procedures proper to the structure of the organized power used for planning and executing those practices. Furthermore, the report points out to the resources and means of the State used in the complex organization and logistics associated with forced disappearances, the systematic denials of detentions and knowledge of the facts by the security forces, as well as the obstruction of investigation, if any, by way of concealment or destruction of evidence, including the mutilation and incineration of the remains of the victims (above paras. 80(1) to 80(8)).
89. In turn, the State Legislature has also taken part in this institutional acknowledgement. At the beginning, in April 1993, in spite of the times of distress in Perú, especially owing to the pressure of Army authorities, the so-called Democratic Constituent Congress created an Inquiry Committee, who was informed of the latest investigations findings as well as other testimonies provided by relatives of the alleged victims, by alumni and authorities of the La Cantuta University, and by General Hermoza-Ríos, who was the then Army Commander General. Even though the opinion report prepared by the majority of the members of the said Committee was rejected on June 26, 1993, by the Constituent Congress, that report revealed the existence of the presumption of criminal liability of high-command army officers for the events in La Cantuta. The Congress approved the opinion report prepared by the minority, which concluded that neither the Peruvian army nor the National Intelligence Service nor the then advisor to said intelligence service were to be held responsible for the facts under investigation (above paras. 80.25, 80.26 and 80.29).
90. Later, on July 20, 2005, the Peruvian Congress passed Law No. 28592 —“A Bill creating the Comprehensive Plan for Reparations (PIR)”— the subject matter of which was to establish the Legal Framework [of said plan] for the victims of the acts of violence that took place over the period between May 1980 and November 2000, pursuant to the conclusions and recommendations stated in the report of the CVR. Notwithstanding the statements below (below paras. 211and 212), this type of laws reflect the will to remedy certain detrimental consequences of what the State acknowledges as severe violations of human rights perpetrated in a systematic and generalized fashion.
91. In turn, the Judiciary had rendered certain judgments and resolutions relating to investigations and proceedings initiated in connection with the events under review in this instant case, as well in some other cases, that clearly described the above context and determined the scope of participation and liability of the Colina Group and high-command officers of the then Government for the events committed.⁸⁸

92. The events in La Cantuta and the systematic practice were favored by the generalized scenario of impunity of the then prevailing severe violations of human rights, fostered and tolerated by the absence of civil liberties and the inefficacy of legal institutions to cope with the said systematic violations of human rights. The CVR confirmed the “discontinuance of democratic institutions affecting the country by means of the overt intervention in the work of the Judiciary, the Constitutional Tribunal, the Public Ministry and other constitutional bodies,” pursuant to which the actions of the so-called National Emergency and Reconstruction Government “indeed neutralized the political and judicial control over their acts.”⁸⁹ The adoption of distinct legal mechanisms and factual situations worked together to hamper investigations and to foster or activate that state of impunity, for example, the delegation of investigations of such facts to military courts (below paras. 137-45); the removal of several judges and prosecutors of all levels, as ordered by the Executive;⁹⁰ and the enactment and enforcement of amnesty laws (below paras. 165-89). This has a close bearing with the duty to investigate cases of extra-legal executions, forced disappearance and other severe violations of human rights (below paras. 110-2).

93. In this regard, the CVR’s final report pointed out that the Judiciary failed to comply adequately with its mission to eradicate the impunity of State agents who used to commit severe human right violations —a failure which contributed to that situation; in addition, the courts refrained themselves from trying members of the armed forces accused of those offenses, systematically loosing each conflict of jurisdiction over the competence of military courts, where the issues remained unpunished. This situation “worsened after the 1992 coup d’etat,” owing to a “clear interference with the Judiciary, by means of group dismissals of magistrates, provisional designations and the creation of competent bodies alien to the judicial system structure, apart from the inoperativeness of the Constitutional Tribunal.” ⁹¹ Other generalized practice corroborated by the CVR was that the “jurisdictional bodies did not protect the rights of citizenship, as they disallowed writs habeas corpus,” and that the Public Ministry failed to comply with its duty to investigate crimes adequately due to its lack of independence from the Executive.⁹²

94. It should be noted that, notwithstanding the following considerations (below paras. 155-7), the State expressed that “it understands that the duty to administer justice consists of investigating and punishing each person who has taken part in the criminal events in La Cantuta. To that extent, the State will abide by the decisions of the Court regarding to the investigation, identification and punishment of those liable for ordering the commission of international crimes, such as the ones under review in the instant case.” Furthermore, the State pointed out that the acknowledged facts “amount to international illicit events [and, in turn,] to crimes under local legislation, and that these international crimes must be prosecuted by the State.”

95. The facts of this case have been classified by the CVR, domestic judicial bodies and by the State’s representative before this Court, as “international crimes” and “crimes against humanity” (above paras. 42, 44, 94 and 80(68)). The extra-legal execution and forced disappearance of alleged victims were perpetrated in the context of a generalized and systematic attack against sectors of the civil population.⁹³
96. Suffice it to mention here that the Court considers it acknowledged and proven that the planning and execution of detention and subsequent cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, extra-legal execution and forced disappearance of alleged victims, carried out in a coordinated and concealed way by the members of military forces and the Colina Group, could not have passed unnoticed to or have occurred without the orders of the superior ranks of the Executive Power and the then military forces and intelligence bodies, especially the chiefs of intelligence and the same President of the Republic himself. Hence, the conclusion to which this Court has recently arrived in the case of Goiburú et al. vs. Paraguay is of full application to this case:
State agents not only failed to comply with their duties to preserve and protect the rights of alleged victims, contemplated in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, but also used their official tenures and resources granted by the State to commit said violations. As State, its institutions, mechanisms and powers had to function as a guarantee of protection against the criminal actions performed by its agents. However, state power was actually used as a means and resource to commit violations of the rights they should have respected and guaranteed […]⁹⁴

97. The victims in the present case, as well as many other persons of that time, suffered from the application of practices and methods in complete disregard of human rights, meticulously planned, systematized and executed from the lines of the State, in many aspects similar to the ones used by the terrorist or subversive groups they meant to fight against under the justification of counter-terrorism or “counter-subversion.”

98. The Court has considered it adequate to start this chapter by stating that the context within which the facts took place tints and conditions the international responsibility of the State in connection with its obligation to respect and guarantee the rights contemplated in the provisions of the Convention alleged to have been violated, both regarding to issues acknowledged by the State and those to be determined in the following chapters relating to the merits of this case and reparations.
IX

Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention

in relation to article 1(1) thereof

(right to life, to personal integrity, to personal liberty and to recognition of juridical personality)

Arguments of the Commission
99. In relation to Article 7 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that:

1. 
   subparagraph 2 thereof was violated, inasmuch as the alleged victims were unlawfully deprived of their liberty, that is to say, outside the reasons and conditions established in domestic legislation, a person can be detained pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by a competent authority or in cases of crimes detected in the act. None of these conditions were met in the instant case;
   

2. 
   subparagraph 3 thereof was violated, inasmuch as both the circumstances and the methods used by members of the military to deprive the victims of their freedom are inconsistent with the respect for the fundamental rights of the individual. This was made even more conspicuous by the absence of proportionality if the detention is analyzed together with other factors, such as the fact that the alleged victims were sleeping, in the early hours, defenseless and unarmed, which increased the arbitrariness of their disappearance and/or execution;
   

3. 
   subparagraph 4 was violated, inasmuch as none of the alleged victims was informed of the motives for their detention or the rights available to them. They were simply led by State agents without further explanations or reasons, with violence;
   

4. 
   subparagraph 5 was violated, inasmuch as the alleged victims were abusively stripped of the protection of the authority that had to rule on their freedom in as short a time as possible. It should be taken into account that, according to available evidence, the abduction of the alleged victims was effected under the premise that they were suspected of being members of the group Sendero Luminoso (Shinning Path), pursuant to information gathered by the State Intelligence Service;
   

5. 
   subparagraph 6 was violated, inasmuch as the State did not allow the alleged victims to file a prompt and effective remedy by their own means in order to establish the legality of their arrest, and kept them under arrest in a place which was not an official detention center (nor was it authorized to be used for that purpose) without any institutional control such as records or minutes to ascertain the date, form and conditions of their detention, and
   

6. 
   the refusal by security agencies to provide information on the whereabouts of the alleged victims and to acknowledge the irregular deprivation of freedom constitutes one of the elements of forced disappearance of persons, which led to the proven extra-legal execution of some of them.
   

100. Regarding Article 5 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that:

1. 
   the violation of physical and mental integrity was effected through the circumstances in which the detention of the alleged victims occurred, as well as during their transportation and for as long as they were detained;
   

2. 
   at the time of the events, the Army was following a systematic and generalized practice whereby those suspected of belonging to subversive groups were clandestinely detained without informing competent authorities and submitted to torture or mistreatment. Eventually, it was decided whether or not to release them, and they were arbitrarily executed or vanished;
   

3. 
   there was lack of due diligence on the part of the State, since after the complaints were filed, it failed to conduct an investigation pursuant to the principles of due process to elucidate the facts and punish those physically and intellectually responsible for them, and
   

4. 
   the mental and moral integrity of the alleged victims' next of kin was affected as a direct consequence of the purported illegal and arbitrary detention of the alleged victims; the lack of information on their whereabouts; their disappearance and, in some cases, death at the hands of state agents; and the failure to investigate the events.
   

101. Regarding Article 4 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that:

1. 
   the State violated the right to life, inasmuch as the teacher and the nine students were alive at the time of their detention by members of the armed forces, and were later found dead and buried in clandestine graves, besides the fact that four of them are still missing;
   

2. 
   it is valid to conclude that the disappearance and death of the alleged victims was not an isolated event but a disappearance and/or extra-legal execution perpetrated by members of the military within the framework of a pattern of extra-legal executions and forced disappearances that were taking place at the time, and
   

3. 
   the State is responsible for the violation of the right to life for failing to properly investigate the events mentioned above.
   

102. Regarding to Article 3 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that:

1. 
   the practice of forced disappearances, initially perpetrated against all the victims of the instant case and the situation of extreme vulnerability they had to face, necessarily affected their right to the recognition of juridical personality;
   

2. 
   in accordance with the evidence on record, when the victims were detained by State agents or persons related to it and later vanished, they were also excluded from the legal and institutional system of the Peruvian State. In this sense, the forced disappearance of persons implies denying the existence of a human being with juridical personality;
   

3. 
   the connection between the forced disappearance and the violation of this right "lies in the fact that the precise aim of this pernicious practice is to deprive the individual of the protection to which he is entitled; the aim of those who follow said practice is to act outside the rule of law, hiding all evidence of the crime and attempting to escape punishment, besides the obvious intent to remove the possibility of this person's filing a legal action concerning the exercise of his rights.” The Commission quotes the UN International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances, the Inter-American Convention on the subject, case law of the Colombian Constitutional Court, a Declaration of the UN General Assembly, and
   

4. 
   it understands that "during the time of their disappearance, the perpetrators attempted to create a 'legal limbo' through the state's failure to admit that they were being held in its custody, the fact that victims were unable to exercise their rights and their next of kin's lack of knowledge of their situation or whereabouts. [...] To the [alleged] victims of the instant case, the consequence of the disappearance was the denial of all rights inherent to a human being.”
   

Arguments of the representatives
103. Besides agreeing with the arguments of the Commission concerning the alleged violation of Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention, the representatives added that:

1. 
   the forced disappearances and executions of the alleged victims of the instant case are to be framed within the series of mechanisms aimed at identifying, persecuting and eliminating people who were allegedly linked to Sendero Luminoso or the Revolutionary Movement Tupac Amaru;
   

2. 
   the State violated not only subparagraphs 2 to 6 of Article 7 of the Convention, but also subparagraph 1 thereof, to the detriment of the alleged victims and their next of kin;
   

3. 
   it can be inferred that the three allegedly disappeared victims were executed, just as the other alleged victims;
   

4. 
   the State violated Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention by submitting the alleged victims to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment during and after their detention. Furthermore, considering the circumstances in which the detentions took place, it is reasonable to infer that the alleged victims experienced deep feelings of anxiety, tension, fear and uncertainty and found themselves in a situation of extreme vulnerability before numerous anonymous persons who were armed and fully supported by the members of the military on duty at La Cantuta University. Likewise, it can be deduced that the treatment they received after they were deprived of their freedom was similar to that of the detention, and
   

5. 
   the lack of proper and effective investigation into the facts with due diligence did not only arise from the negligence and omissions of judicial operators during the investigations but also from the fact that certain mechanisms designed to cover up for both the direct perpetrators and the instigators of the facts of the instant case.
   

Arguments of the State:
104. The State acquiesced to the violation of Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, alleged by the Commission and the representatives (supra paras. 40 and 45)

Considerations of the Court
105. Article 3 of the Convention establishes that “[e]very person has the right to recognition as a person before the law.”
106. Article 4(1) of the Convention provides that
[e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
107. Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention establishes that:
1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.
2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated regarding for the inherent dignity of the human person.
108. Article 7 of the Convention provides that:
1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.
2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.
3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.
4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him.
5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.
6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. […]

a) Clarifications on Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention
109. Firstly, in relation to Article 7 of the Convention, the Commission and the representatives alleged that the norm was violated on the basis of a subparagraph-by- subparagraph analysis thereof. The Court observes that the deprivation of freedom of those people by members of the military and the Grupo Colina (Colina Group), was a step prior to achieving what they had actually been ordered to do: execute or vanish them. The circumstances of the deprivation of freedom clearly show that it was not a case of a crime detected in the act, inasmuch as it was acknowledged that the alleged victims were in their places of residence when the military forces burst in violently in the early hours and took them away pursuant to a list. The use of lists with the names of people to be detained was identified by the CVR (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Perú) as part of the modus operandi of state agents to select victims of extra-legal executions and forced disappearances.⁹⁵ Contrary to the analysis made by the Commission and the representatives, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the alleged victims were informed of the reasons for their detention; whether or not said detention was effected regardless of the motives and conditions established in the Peruvian legislation in force at the time of the events and, least of all, whether the acts of the detention were unreasonable, unpredictable or disproportionate. The detention of those people was a clear instance of abuse of power, it was not ordered by a competent authority and its aim was not to bring those people before a judge or another official authorized by law to rule on the legality of the arrest but to execute them or force their disappearance. That is to say, the detention was of an obvious illegal and arbitrary nature, and it contradicted the provisions of Article 7(1) and 7(2) of the Convention.
110. Furthermore, this case occurred within a generalized situation of impunity for egregious human rights violations (supra paras. 81, 88, 92 and 93), which conditioned the protection of the rights concerned. In that sense, the Court has understood that the duty to investigate cases of violations of substantive law that must be safeguarded, protected or guaranteed derives from the general duty to uphold the human rights embodied in Article 1(1) of the Convention.⁹⁶ Thus, in cases of extra-legal executions, forced disappearances and other egregious human rights violations, the Court has held that the conduct of a prompt, serious, impartial and effective ex officio investigation is a fundamental and conditioning element for the protection of certain rights that are otherwise affected or annulled by those situations, such as the right to life, personal liberty and personal integrity. This duty to investigate becomes particularly and particularly intense and significant in cases of crimes against humanity (infra paras. 157).
111. In cases concerning deprivation of liberty, such as the instant case, the habeas corpus remedy constituted, among indispensable judicial guarantees, the most suitable means to ensure freedom, oversee the respect for life and personal integrity and avoid disappearances or lack of information about detention centers, as well as to protect the individual from torture or other forms of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. ⁹⁷ However, within the context described above, the courts rejected the actions. In two of them, they simply accepted the justifications or silence of military authorities, who alleged a state of emergency or reasons of "national security" to withhold information (supra para. 80(20)). In this regard, the Court has held that
in cases of human rights violations, the State authorities cannot resort to mechanisms such as official secret or confidentiality of the information, or reasons of public interest or national security, to refuse to supply the information required by the judicial or administrative authorities in charge of the ongoing investigation or proceeding.
Likewise, when a punishable fact is being investigated, the decision to define the information as secret and to refuse to submit it can never depend exclusively on a State body whose members are deemed responsible for committing the illegal act. “It is not, therefore, a matter of denying that the Government must continue to safeguard official secrets, but of stating that in such a paramount issue its actions must be subject to control by other branches of the State or by a body that ensures respect for the principle of the division or powers...” Thus, what is incompatible with the Rule of Law and effective judicial protection “is not that there are secrets, but rather that these secrets are outside legal control, that is to say, that the authority has areas in which it is not responsible because they are not juridically regulated and are therefore outside any control system…”⁹⁸
112. In the instant case, even though they were filed and decided, the petitions for habeas corpus did not lead to serious and independent investigations, so that the protection due under them proved illusory. In this sense, the representatives alleged that the State violated Article 7(6) of the Convention to the detriment of both the victims and their next of kin. The Court considers that, according to the text of the article, "the right to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention” belongs to the "person deprived of his liberty" and not to his next of kin, although both "the interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.” Therefore, in accordance with its jurisprudence,⁹⁹ the State is responsible, in this respect, for violating Article 7(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 10 executed or missing victims.
113. As regards the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, acknowledged by the State, it is clear that, in light of the circumstances in which they were detained and taken to an indefinite place before being executed or vanished, the alleged victims were placed in a situation of vulnerability and lack of protection which affected their physical, mental and moral integrity. Certainly, there is no evidence of the specific acts to which these people were submitted before being executed or vanished. Nevertheless, the modus operandi pertaining to the facts of the instant case within the context of that kind of systematic practice (supra paras. 80(1) to 80(8)) together with the failure to investigate (supra paras. 110 to 112 and infra paras. 135 to 157) allow the inference that those people experienced deep feelings of fear, anxiety and defenselessness. In the least serious situation, they were submitted to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment when they witnessed acts perpetrated against other people, their concealment or execution, all of which made them anticipate their deadly fate. Thus, it is coherent to describe the acts against the personal integrity of the 10 executed or missing victims in terms of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention.
114. Regarding the violation of the right to life, also acknowledged by the State, the facts of the instant case resulted from an operation executed in coordination with the Grupo Colina, also in charge of covering up said operation. Intelligence services and the very incumbent President of the Republic at the time knew about and ordered said operation (supra paras. 96 and 97). This is consistent with the systematic practice of perpetrating illegal and arbitrary detentions, torture, extra-legal executions and forced disappearances verified at the time of the facts (supra paras. 80(12) and 80(18)). It is necessary to indicate that full identification of the mortal remains of Bertila Lozano-Torres and Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea allows a description of the acts perpetrated to their detriment as extra-legal executions. On the other hand, it can be inferred, from the discovery of human remains and the recognition of objects belonging to some of the detainees found in the clandestine graves, that Armando Amaro-Cóndor, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa, Robert Teodoro-Espinoza and Heráclides Pablo-Meza were also deprived of their lives. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court believes that, as long as the whereabouts of those persons are not determined, or their remains are duly located and identified, the proper legal treatment of the situation of those four people is that of forced disappearance, just as in the cases of Dora Oyague-Fierro, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Felipe Flores-Chipana and Hugo Muñoz- Sánchez.
115. The Court recalls that the systematic practice of forced disappearances entails non-recognition of the duty to organize the State apparatus to guarantee the rights embodied in the Convention, which replicates the conditions of impunity that allow these events to occur again.¹⁰⁰ That is the reason why it is important for the State to adopt all the necessary measures to avoid said events, to investigate and punish those responsible and to inform the missing person's next of kin of his whereabouts and compensate them as appropriate.¹⁰¹ Likewise, the Court has held that the international responsibility of the Sate is aggravated if the disappearance is part of a systematic pattern or a practice applied or tolerated by the State, for it constitutes a crime against humanity involving a flagrant disavowal of the essential principles on which the inter-American system is based.¹⁰²
116. In light of the foregoing considerations, and under the terms of the acquiescence of the State, it is appropriate to find that the latter is responsible for the illegal and arbitrary detention, the extra-legal execution of Bertila Lozano-Torres and Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea and the forced disappearance of Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro- Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Felipe Flores-Chipana, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas and Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, as well as for the cruel, inhumane or degrading acts perpetrated against them, which constitute a violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the above mentioned persons. The international responsibility of the State is aggravated by the context in which the events occurred, analyzed in the previous chapter, as well as by the non-compliance with the protection and investigation duties described in this chapter.

b) The right to recognition of the juridical personality of disappeared persons
117. Although the State has acquiesced to the violation of Article 3 of the American Convention, alleged by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives (supra para. 41), the Court is empowered, under Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to decide "on the validity of the acquiescence and its legal effects" (supra paras. 47 to 50 and 52).
118. The argument of the Commission focuses on the fact that, as a consequence of the forced disappearance of the alleged victims, these people were "were excluded from the legal and institutional system of the Peruvian state,” that is to say, the perpetrators of the disappearance "attempted to create a 'legal limbo' through the state's failure to admit that they were being held in its custody, the fact that victims were unable to exercise their rights and their next of kin's lack of knowledge of their situation or whereabouts.”
119. Previously, in another case involving forced disappearance of people, the Court had the chance to rule on the merits in relation to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the above mentioned instrument. In the case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, the Court considered that the State had not violated the victim's right to juridical personality, since
[n]aturally, the arbitrary deprivation of life suppresses the human being and, consequently, in these circumstances, it is not in order to invoke an alleged violation of the right to juridical personality or other rights embodied in the American Convention. The right to the recognition of juridical personality established in Article 3 of the American Convention has its own juridical content, as do the other rights protected by the Convention.¹⁰³
120. With regard to the juridical content of Article 3 of the American Convention, also enshrined in other international instruments¹⁰⁴, the Inter-American Court has defined it as the right of every person
to be recognized everywhere as a person having rights and obligations, and to enjoy the basic civil rights. The right to the recognition of juridical personality implies the capacity to be the holder of rights (capacity of exercise) and obligations; the violation of this recognition presumes an absolute disavowal of the possibility of being a holder of such rights and obligations.¹⁰⁵
121. In view of the foregoing, and as empowered by Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court believes that in the instant case there are no facts leading to the conclusion that the State violated Article 3 of the Convention.

c) The right to personal integrity of the victims' next of kin
122. The State has acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Bertila Lozano-Torres, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa and Felipe Flores-Chipana (supra paras. 51 and 52). However, it did not make the same acknowledgement in respect of their next of kin, which was alleged by the Commission and the representatives. Therefore, inasmuch as the dispute over this issue is still open (supra para. 58), in this section the Court will determine whether the State is responsible for the alleged violation of said next of kin's right to personal integrity.
123. In the instant case, the Court recalls its jurisprudence that in cases involving forced disappearance of people, it can be understood that the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the victim's next of kin is, precisely, a direct consequence of that event, which causes them severe suffering and is made worse by the continued refusal of state authorities to supply information on the victim's whereabouts or to conduct an effective investigation to elucidate the facts.¹⁰⁶
124. According to its jurisprudence,¹⁰⁷ the Court shall now determine whether the suffering endured as a consequence of the specific circumstances of the violations perpetrated against the victims, the situations some of them had to live through within that context, and the subsequent acts or omissions of state authorities, violates the right to personal integrity of the victims' next of kin, in light of the facts of the instant case.
125. During the detention and disappearance of the victims, their next of kin embarked on a search in different institutions, in which authorities denied the victims' detention. Additionally, the Court has verified the experiences the next of kin had to go through later on:

1. 
   After the clandestine graves were discovered, some next of kin were present during the exhumations and even helped to make them. The authorities gave the remains of some of the victims to their next of kin "in milk cartons;"
   

2. 
   After the disappearance of the victims, some of their next of kin dropped the activities they had been performing up to then. Indeed, after the disappearance of Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa, his brother Rosario Carpio Cardoso-Figueroa was exiled for more than a year and a half and his sister Viviana Mariños was also exiled for 12 years;
   

3. 
   several victims' next of kin have been threatened while searching for their beloved ones and due to the actions they have undertaken in their quest for justice;
   

4. 
   after the disappearance of the victims, their next of kin have faced stigmatization, being branded as "terrorists";
   

5. 
   for a while, military courts assumed the hearing of the case, which prevented the next of kin from taking part in the investigations. Likewise, the petitions for habeas corpus filed by the next of kin were ineffective (supra paras. 111 and 112). In other cases, the lack of effective remedies has been regarded by the Court as an additional source of suffering and anxiety for the victims and their next of kin.¹⁰⁸ The delay in the investigations, which were also incomplete and ineffective for the punishment of all those responsible for the facts has exacerbated next of kin's feelings of impotence, and
   

6. 
   on the other hand, because the remains of eight out of the 10 mentioned victims are still missing, their next of kin have not had the possibility of duly honoring their beloved ones, even though they have received symbolic burial. In this respect, the Court recalls that continued deprivation of the truth regarding the fate of a disappeared person constitutes cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment against close next of kin.¹⁰⁹
   

126. The facts of the instant case allow the conclusion that the violation of next of kin's personal integrity, as a consequence of the forced disappearance and extra-legal execution of the victims, flows from the situations and circumstances some of them had to go through, during and after said disappearance, as well as from the general context in which the events occurred. Many of these situations and their effects, fully understood in the complexity of the forced disappearance, will persist for as long as some of the verified factors prevail.¹¹⁰ The next of kin still present physical and mental sequels of the facts described above and the events have made an impact on their social and work relations and altered their families' dynamics.

127. The Court considers it necessary to point out that victim Heráclides Pérez-Meza lived with his aunt, Ms. Dina Flormelania Pablo-Mateo for seven years after he moved to Lima to pursue university studies. Furthermore, victim Dora Oyague-Fierro lived with her father and paternal aunt and uncle, to wit, Ms. Carmen Oyague-Velazco and Mr. Jaime Oyague-Velazco, ever since she was a child. Besides, victim Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza was raised by his father and by Ms. Bertila Bravo-Trujillo. In the three cases, once the victims had disappeared, said next of kin began looking for them and filed, in some cases, legal actions before the authorities; that is to say, they faced the obstructive judicial apparatus, and suffered its direct effects (supra paras. 80(19) to 80(21) and 80(24)).
128. The Court also observes that both the Inter-American Commission and the representatives identified several brothers and sisters of the executed or disappeared persons as alleged victims of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention. However, in several of those cases, the evidence produced was insufficient to enable the Court to establish actual damage to said next of kin. Accordingly, the Court only considers victims those siblings in respect of whom sufficient evidence was furnished.
129. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the State violated the right to personal integrity embodied in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Antonia Pérez-Velásquez, Margarita Liliana Muñoz-Pérez, Hugo Alcibíades Muñoz-Pérez, Mayte Yu yin Muñoz-Atanasio, Hugo Fedor Muñoz-Atanasio, Carol Muñoz-Atanasio, Zorka Muñoz-Rodríguez, Vladimir Ilich Muñoz-Sarria, Rosario Muñoz- Sánchez, Fedor Muñoz-Sánchez, José Esteban Oyague-Velazco, Pilar Sara Fierro-Huamán, Carmen Oyague-Velazco, Jaime Oyague-Velazco, Demesia Cárdenas-Gutiérrez, Augusto Lozano-Lozano, Juana Torres de Lozano, Víctor Andrés Ortiz-Torres, Magna Rosa Perea de Ortiz, Andrea Gisela Ortiz-Perea, Edith Luzmila Ortiz-Perea, Gaby Lorena Ortiz-Perea, Natalia Milagros Ortiz-Perea, Haydee Ortiz-Chunga, Alejandrina Raida Cóndor-Saez, Hilario Jaime Amaro-Ancco, María Amaro-Cóndor, Susana Amaro-Cóndor, Carlos Alberto Amaro-Cóndor, Carmen Rosa Amaro-Cóndor, Juan Luis Amaro-Cóndor, Martín Hilario Amaro- Cóndor, Francisco Manuel Amaro-Cóndor, José Ariol Teodoro-León, Edelmira Espinoza-Mory, Bertila Bravo-Trujillo, José Faustino Pablo-Mateo, Serafina Meza-Aranda, Dina Flormelania Pablo-Mateo, Isabel Figueroa-Aguilar, Román Mariños-Eusebio, Rosario Carpio Cardoso- Figueroa, Viviana Mariños-Figueroa, Marcia Claudina Mariños-Figueroa, Margarita Mariños- Figueroa de Padilla, Carmen Chipana de Flores and Celso Flores-Quispe.