Inter-American Court of Human Rights

D) Other Forms of Reparation

(Satisfaction measures and guarantees of non-repetition)
221. Under this heading, the Court will set non-monetary satisfaction measures aimed at redressing non pecuniary damage, also ordering measures of public import or impact.

a) Obligation to investigate the facts that amounted to the violations complained of in the case at hand, and to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible

222. The State is under a duty to use all means available to fight the situation of impunity surrounding the instant case, as impunity fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin,¹⁷¹ who are entitled to learn the whole truth of the facts,¹⁷² even the names of all responsible parties. Upon being acknowledged and enforced in a specific situation, this right to truth becomes a relevant means for redress and creates a fair expectation in the victims that the State is required to satisfy.¹⁷³

223. The Court views as a significant first step towards reparation the publication of Perú’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which, on the La Cantuta case stated, inter alia, as follows:
[T]he CRV urges the Judiciary and provides its support for it to continue to investigate the submitted facts in order to identify those responsible therefor and punish them, as required under the domestic legislation, for the human rights violations and other crimes committed against the administration of justice and the State’s authorities.
Furthermore, it requests that the Supreme Court of Justice of Perú hand down a judicial ruling on the inapplicability of Laws No. 26,479 and No. 26,492, the amnesty laws, based on the judgments issued by the [Inter-American] C[ourt of Human Rights] in the case of Barrios Altos. […]
224. It is the Court’s view that the work undertaken by said Commission constitutes a major effort and has contributed to the search for and establishment of truth for a period of Perú’s history. However, and without failing to recognize the foregoing, the Court deems it appropriate to specify that the “historical truth” contained in said report does not complete or substitute the State’s obligation to also establish the truth through court proceedings,¹⁷⁴ as acknowledged by the State itself by keeping the investigations open even after the report was issued. In this regard, it is worth noting that, in the framework of Articles 1(1), 8 and 25 of the Convention, the victims’ next of kin have a right, and the State has the obligation, to have what happened to the victims effectively investigated by the State’s authorities, the parties allegedly responsible for such illegal acts prosecuted, and, if appropriate, appropriately punished. In view of the above, the State is required to immediately take the steps required to effectively complete, in a reasonable period, the pending investigations and the criminal proceedings instituted before the regular criminal courts and to open, if appropriate, such proceedings as may be necessary to establish the criminal liability of all perpetrators of the acts committed 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.
225. In this regard, the Court will emphasize that the acts committed in La Cantuta to the detriment of the victims of extra-legal execution or forced disappearance, are crimes against humanity that cannot go unpunished, are non-extinguishable and cannot be the subject-matter of amnesty (supra para. 152). Accordingly, the Court’s considerations in the case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile apply:
[…] According to the International Law corpus iuris, a crime against humanity is in itself a serious violation of human rights and affects mankind as a whole.¹⁷⁵
[…] Since the individual and the whole mankind are the victims of all crimes against humanity, the General Assembly of the United Nations has held since 1946¹⁷⁶ that those responsible for the commission of such crimes must be punished. In that respect, they point out Resolutions 2583 (XXIV) of 1969¹⁷⁷ and 3074 (XXVIII) of 1973.¹⁷⁸
[…] Crimes against humanity are intolerable in the eyes of the international community and offend humanity as a whole. The damage caused by these crimes still prevails in the national society and the international community, both of which demand that those responsible be investigated and punished. In this sense, the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity¹⁷⁹ clearly states that “no statutory limitation shall apply to [said internationally wrongful acts], irrespective of the date of their commission.”
[…] Even though [the State] has not ratified said Convention, the Court believes that the non-applicability of statutes of limitations to crimes against humanity is a norm of General International Law (ius cogens), which is not created by said Convention, but it is acknowledged by it. Hence, [the State] must comply with this imperative rule.
226. Therefore, further to its duty to investigate and, if appropriate, punish the guilty parties, the State is required to remove all obstacles –both factual and legal– contributing to impunity, and use all available means to expedite the investigation and the relevant proceedings, thus preventing the recurrence of acts as serious as those under analysis in the case at hand. The State may not rely upon any domestic law or regulation to justify its failure to comply with the Court’s order to investigate and, if appropriate, criminally punish the parties responsible for the La Cantuta events. Particularly, as has been the case ever since the Court’s judgment in the case of Barrios Altos v. Perú, the State may never apply amnesty laws –which will produce no effects in the future (supra para. 152)–, raise the statute of limitations, non-ex post facto nature of criminal laws or res judicata defenses, or rely upon the principle of double jeopardy (supra para. 182), or resort to any other similar measure designed to eliminate responsibility in order to escape its duty to investigate and punish those responsible.¹⁸⁰ Accordingly, as the case may be, the relevant investigations need to be opened against all parties investigated, convicted, or acquitted or whose cases were dismissed, in a military criminal proceeding.
227. Additionally, in line with the arguments above (supra paras. 159 and 160), further to the general obligation to respect laid down in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, Perú is to continue to adopt all judicial and diplomatic measures required in order to prosecute and, if appropriate, punish, all parties responsible for the violations committed in this case, and to continue to insist on the requests for extradition under the applicable domestic or international law rules. Furthermore, based on the effectiveness of the collective protection mechanism established under the Convention, the States Parties to the Convention are required to cooperate with each other in order to put an end to the impunity existing for the violations committed in the case at hand by prosecuting and, if appropriate, punishing, those responsible therefor.
228. Lastly, as has been the case so far, the State is required to guarantee to the victims’ next of kin full access and procedural capacity at all stages of and before all courts involved in such investigations and proceedings, pursuant to the domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention.¹⁸¹ Furthermore, the outcome thereof is to be published by the State in order that the Peruvian society may learn the truth of the facts of the case at hand.

b) Search and burial of the remains of the disappeared persons
229. In the instant case, the Court has established that Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa and Felipe Flores-Chipana are still disappeared (supra. 80(16)).
230. Moreover, the Court has proven that during the exhumations in Cieneguillas and Huachipa, bone remains and victims’ belongings were found, but it was not able to prove that the necessary actions to identify the remains found in the clandestine graves have been taken. There is no evidence either that the State has taken further actions to search for and, in turn, identify the remains of the above-mentioned disappeared victims.
231. The right of the next of kin to know the location of the mortal remains of the victims¹⁸² is in itself a measure of reparation and gives rise to expectations that must be fulfilled by the State.¹⁸³ Furthermore, the Court has sustained that mortal remains deserve to be duly respected for the special relevance that the victims bear to their next of kin.¹⁸⁴
232. The Court considers that the State must search for and locate the mortal remains of Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa and Felipe Flores-Chipana, by means of the identification of the other remains found at Cieneguilla and Huachipa, or by taking any action necessary to that effect either in those places or in any location where said remains are thought to be. Should the remains of the victims be found, the State must deliver them without delay to their next of kin, prior genetic parentage evaluation thereof. The State must also bear any burial expenses, as agreed with the victims' next of kin.

c) Public acknowledgement of liability

233. This Court considers approvingly that in the month of June of the current year, the President of the Republic apologized to the authorities of the University of La Cantuta during a ceremony where he was awarded a decoration by the University (supra para. 197(c)).

234. Furthermore, the Court has as well approvingly assessed the acknowledgement and acquiescence made by the State in the instant case, and the presentation made by the President of the Republic which was read out by the state Agent during the public hearing held in the month of September of the current year (supra paras. 43 and 56).
235. However, in order for the acknowledgement made by Perú and the rulings of this Court to be fully effective as a measure of reparation to the memory 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 and to be deemed a non repetition guarantee, the Court finds that the State must make a public acknowledgement of liability for the forced disappearance or extra-legal execution of the victims. That public acknowledgement must be made in the presence of the relatives of the aforementioned victims and must count on the participation of the State’s highest-ranking authorities. Said public act must be performed within six months following notice of this Judgment.
236. Moreover, with regard to the request to build a memorial, the Court thinks highly of the memorial and public site named "El ojo que llora" (The Crying Eye), built by a civil association in collaboration with state authorities as a main acknowledgement to the victims of violence in Perú. However, the Court considers that the State must ensure that, within the term of one year, the 10 individuals declared executed or forcefully disappeared victims in the instant case shall be represented in said memorial if they are not represented so far and provided their relatives so desire. In doing so, the State must coordinate the victims’ relatives’ efforts to place a sign with the name of each victim, in the manner that may best fit the characteristics of the memorial.

d) Publication of the Judgment

237. As ordered in other cases and as a measure of satisfaction,¹⁸⁵ the State shall publish at least once in the Official Gazette and in another national daily newspaper, the sections entitled Partial Acknowledgement, Proven Facts, without the corresponding footnotes, and paragraphs 81 to 98, 109 to 116, 122 to 129, 135 to 161 and 165 to 189, and the operative paragraphs of this Judgment. Said publication shall be made within six months following notice of this Judgment.

e) Medical and psychological treatment for the next of kin of executed or forcefully disappeared victims

238. The Court considers that it is necessary to provide for a measure of reparation seeking to relieve the bodily and psychological suffering of the relatives 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. To that end, the Court orders the State to provide the above-mentioned individuals, with their prior consent and for the necessary period of time from the date the notice of this Judgment is served upon them, free of charge and at national health-care facilities, with any necessary medical and psychological treatment which shall comprise provision of medicines. The psychological treatment must be provided taking into account the specific conditions and needs of each individual.

g) Training in human rights
239. The acts attributable to the State in the instant case were perpetrated by members of the “Grupo Colina” forces in violation of the provisions of compulsory International Law. The Court has further argued that¹⁸⁶ in order to adequately secure the right to life and humane treatment, the members of security forces must receive proper training and education. Furthermore, the events in the instant case occurred amidst a then existing generalized context of impunity of severe violations of human rights, which was fostered and encompassed by the lack of respect to the right to a fair trial and the inefficacy of judicial authorities to handle those situations, which in turn translated as the impunity of the major perpetrators of the violations.
240. Consequently, the State must adopt the necessary measures to train and educate the members of intelligence services, the Armed Forces and the National Police on legality issues and restrictions related to the use of force in general situations, armed conflict and terrorism, the due obedience concept and the role of said institutions in situations such as the events in the instant case. In doing so, the State must implement, on a permanent basis and within a reasonable time, human rights-oriented programs for all-rank members of the above-mentioned institutions.
241. The State must also adopt the necessary measures to train and educate prosecutors and judges, including officers of military criminal courts, on international standards related to the judicial protection of human rights. In doing so, the State must also implement, on a permanent basis and within a reasonable time, human rights-oriented programs for the above-mentioned officers.
242. Said programs shall specially focus on the instant Judgment and the international instruments on human rights.