Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru Judgment of November 27, 1998



Download 351.71 Kb.
Page1/5
Date conversion21.05.2016
Size351.71 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5



Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru

Judgment of November 27, 1998

(Reparations and Costs)

In the Loayza Tamayo Case,


the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, composed of the following judges:
Hernán Salgado-Pesantes, President

Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, Vice President

Máximo Pacheco-Gómez, Judge

Oliver Jackman, Judge

Alirio Abreu-Burelli, Judge

Sergio García-Ramírez, Judge

Carlos Vicente de Roux-Rengifo, Judge;
also present:
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and

Víctor M. Rodríguez-Rescia, Deputy Secretary ad interim,



pursuant to articles 29, 55 and 56 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Court", "the Inter-American Court" or "the Tribunal"), in relation to Article 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or the "American Convention") and in compliance with the Judgment of September 17, 1997, enters the following judgment on reparations in the case brought by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or "the Inter-American Commission") against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter "Peru" or "the State".)

i

jurisdiction
1. Under the terms of articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has jurisdiction to decide on the payment of reparations and costs in the instant case, inasmuch as Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978, and recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on January 21, 1981.
ii

background
2. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights brought the instant Case to the Court by application dated January 12, 1995, attached to which was Report No. 20/94 of September 26, 1994. The Case originated with a complaint (No. 11,154) against Perú, received at the Secretariat of the Commission on May 6, 1993.
3. On September 17, 1997, the Court passed Judgment on the merits of the Case, the operative part of which declares that:
[…]
1. That the State of Peru violated, to the detriment of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, the Right to Personal Liberty recognized in Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 25 and 1(1) thereof.
[…]
2. That the State of Peru violated, to the detriment of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, the Right to Humane Treatment recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof.
[…]
3. That the State of Peru violated, to the detriment of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, the judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) and (2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 25 and 1(1) thereof, on the terms set forth in this Judgment.
[…]
4. That the State of Peru violated, to the detriment of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, the Judicial Guarantees established in Article 8(4) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof.
[…]
5. To order the State of Peru to release María Elena Loayza-Tamayo within a reasonable time, on the terms set forth in paragraph 84 of this Judgment.
[…]
6. That the State of Peru is obliged to pay fair compensation to the victim and her next of kin and to reimburse them for any expenses they may have incurred in their representations before the Peruvian authorities in connection with this process, for which purpose the corresponding proceeding remains open.
4. On October 20, 1997, Peru reported that on October 16 of that year it had released Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo (hereinafter “the victim”), in compliance with the Judgment issued by the Court on September 17, 1997. The victim appeared before the Court, in person, at a public hearing held on June 9, 1998 and with that confirmed the fact that she had been released by the State.
iii

proceedings at the reparations stage
5. In compliance with the Judgment entered on September 17 of that year, on November 11, 1997 the Inter-American Court decided as follows:
1. To grant the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights until January 12, 1998 to submit a brief and whatever evidence it might have in its possession for purposes of determining the compensation and costs in the instant case.
2. To grant Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, the victim in the instant case, and her next of kin or their representatives, until January 12, 1998, to submit a brief and any evidence they may have for purposes of determining the compensation and costs.
3. To give the State of Peru until March 16, 1998, to present its observations on the briefs submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the victim, her next of kin or their representatives, referred to in the preceding paragraphs.
6. On December 16, 1997, the Inter-American Commission informed the Court that Mr. Domingo E. Acevedo had been designated as a delegate in the instant Case, to serve with delegate Oscar Luján-Fappiano. On February 27, 1998, the Commission withdrew the appointment of attorney Verónica Gómez as its assistant.
7. On December 24, 1997, the Commission petitioned the Court seeking an extension of the deadline given to file its brief on reparations in the instant Case. By an order of that same date, the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President") extended until January 31, 1998, the deadline established for the victim, her next of kin or their representatives and the Inter-American Commission to file their briefs on reparations. The President also extended the deadline given to the State to present its brief in this matter until April 6, 1998. On January 21, 1998, the Court confirmed the President’s order.
8. On January 30, 1998, the Inter-American Commission submitted its brief on reparations in the instant Case. The victim submitted her reparations brief that same day, and indicated that the attachments thereto would be forwarded to the Court later. On February 5, 1998, the victim sent those attachments to the Court, which were then forwarded to the Commission and to the State on February 9, 1998. The only exception was a videotape, corresponding to Appendix IV; copies of that tape were made and then sent to the Commission and to Peru on February 16, 1998.
9. On February 5, 1998, the victim informed the Court that in the instant proceedings, she would be represented by Ms. Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, and by Mr. Ariel Dulitzky, Ms.Viviana Krsticevic and Ms. Marcela Matamoros, members of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), and by Mr. José Miguel Vivanco, member of Human Rights Watch/Americas. On June 18, 1998, Ms. Marcela Matamoros informed the Court that she had resigned as representative of the victim.
10. On March 9, 1998, the President summoned the victim and her next of kin or their representatives, the Inter-American Commission and Peru to a public hearing on reparations, to be held at the seat of the Court on June 9, 1998.
11. On March 24, 1998, the State requested that the Court clarify which of the briefs on reparations, presented by the victim and by the Commission was to be regarded as the “official petition” in these proceedings. On March 25, 1998, the Secretariat informed Peru that:
pursuant to the article [23 of the Rules of Procedure], the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the victim and her representatives presented their briefs on reparations independently of each other. Hence, the State of Peru may respond to those briefs and the arguments they contain however it sees fit.
12. On March 31, 1998, the State requested that the President extend the deadline set for its observations on the briefs on reparations and make the new deadline June 6, 1998. On April 2, 1998, the Secretariat informed Peru that the deadline for its brief had been extended to May 12, 1998.
13. On April 20, 1998, the Secretariat asked the victim, the Commission and the State to specify how many witnesses and experts they would call at the public hearing that the Court was to hold on reparations at its seat on June 9, 1998, and what the purpose of their testimony or expert testimony would be. Further likewise, following instructions from the President, the Secretariat requested that, for the sake of procedural speed and economy, particular consideration be given to the possibility of presenting some testimonial and expert evidence in the form of sworn affidavits.
14. On April 28, 1998, the victim presented observations on the testimonial and expert evidence. She also offered herself as a witness and explained the purpose of her testimony. She added that she would submit sworn affidavits from the following persons: Julio Loayza-Sudario, Adelina Tamayo de Loayza, Gisselle Elena Zambrano-Loayza, Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza, and Delia Haydée, Carolina Maida, Julio William, Olga Adelina, Rubén Edilberto and Giovanna Elizabeth, all by the surname Loayza-Tamayo, and the expert opinion of an unnamed member of the "Fundación de Ayuda Social de Fieles de las Iglesias Cristianas" (hereinafter "FASIC"). In her brief, the victim also requested that:
a) The government’s brief of reply, the deadline for which [was set to] expire on May 12, be forwarded to her so that she might present [her] observations and offer any documentary, testimonial and expert evidence deemed necessary and pertinent.
b) The deadline for submitting the final list of witnesses and the sworn affidavits be extended until the content of the Peruvian government’s reply [was] known by her.
15. On May 5, 1998, the Secretariat informed the victim that:
a) In keeping with the Court’s customary practice, the State’s brief on reparations [would] be sent to the Inter-American Commission and to the victim as soon as it [was] presented at this Secretariat. However, no provision is made for rebuttals and rejoinders at the reparations stage of the proceedings.
b) Under the Court’s established rules and Article 43 of its Rules of Procedure, any evidence the Parties tender is to be set forth in the original brief each party submits for each stage of the proceeding. In the instant case, the victim properly tendered evidence in her brief on reparations.
c) The note from the Secretariat, dated April 20, 1998, was intended to clarify certain discrepancies in the evidence tendered by the victim. Accordingly, it does not constitute another tender of evidence, as its sole purpose was to clarify the evidence tendered with the original brief.
d) When any party believes there is just cause to tender an item of evidence at a time other than that already established, the circumstances must fit those set forth in Article 43 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.
For these reasons, the President has denied your request for an extension of the deadline for presenting the final list of witnesses and experts. As for your request that a deadline be set for filing the sworn affidavits that were offered, the President will determine that deadline and you will be notified accordingly.
16. On May 4, 1998, the Commission named the victim as a witness and specified the purpose of her testimony.
17. On May 7, 1998, the State presented its observations on the reparations briefs, and attached documentary evidence thereto.
18. On May 12, 1998, the President summoned the victim to testify during the public hearing that was scheduled to be held at the seat of the Court and informed the victim that the “sworn affidavits” and expert report offered in her brief of April 28, 1998 (supra 14) were to be submitted by no later than May 29, 1998.
19. On May 28, 1998, the victim submitted affidavits that Gisselle Elena Zambrano-Loayza, Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza, Adelina Tamayo de Loayza, Julio Loayza-Sudario, Olga Adelina Loayza-Tamayo, Elizabeth Giovanna Loayza-Tamayo and Carolina Loayza-Tamayo had made under oath and signed in the presence of a notary. She also presented a second power of attorney and a number of additional documents, invoking articles 43 and 44 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules”) for her submissions.
20. On June 8, 1998, Peru presented its observations on the brief submitted by the victim on April 28 of that year, wherein it reiterated some issues raised in her reparations brief and objected to some of the documents.
21. On June 9, 1998, the State objected to the plan to take the victim’s testimony. At a meeting held prior to the public hearing the Court was to hold later that same day, the President heard arguments from the State, the victim and the Commission, then dismissed the State’s objection and decided that the Court would hear the testimony in question.
22. That same day, the Court held the public hearing on reparations.
There appeared before the Court:
the victim, María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, who also testified, and her representatives:
Carolina Loayza-Tamayo and

Ariel E. Dulitzky;


for the Inter-American Commission:
Oscar Luján-Fappiano, delegate, and

Domingo E. Acevedo, delegate;


for the State:
Jennie Vizcarra-Alvizuri, alternate agent,

Ana Reátegui-Napurí, advisor and



Walter Palomino-Cabezas, advisor.
23. In the course of her testimony, the victim turned over a newspaper article titled "Niegan Billete a María Elena Loayza-Tamayo", published in the May 12, 1998 issue of the Lima newspaper "Ojo".
24. On June 11, 1998, the victim sent the Court several documents concerning her state of health, receipts for medical expenses and an estimate for dental work, invoking Article 43 or Article 44, as appropriate, of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.
25. On July 14, 1998, the State filed an objection to the documentation that the victim had submitted on June 11 of that year, arguing that the documentation in question had been submitted extemporaneously.
26. As evidence to help it arrive at a more informed judgment, on July 23, 1998 the Secretariat requested that Peru submit the official exchange rate between the local currency of Peru and the United States dollar for the period from 1993 to 1998, as quoted by the Banco Central del Perú. It also requested Peru’s legislation on the matter of salaries and work bonuses. Via notes dated August 21 and September 11, 29 and 30, 1998, the State complied with the Court’s request.
27. On July 30, 1998, Peru petitioned the Court to convene another public hearing to “elaborate upon the arguments given in support of its observations […] concerning the reparations requested in these proceedings.” In notes dated July 29 and 30, 1998, the victim and the Commission objected to the request. On July 30, the Secretariat informed the State that its request had been denied.
28. On August 29, 1998, the Court decided the following:
1. As evidence to help the Court arrive at a more informed judgment, to request the "Colegio Médico de Chile" to commission one or more of its members to issue a medical report on the physical and psychiatric condition of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo.
2. As evidence to help the Court arrive at a more informed judgment, to request the "Colegio Médico del Perú" to commission one or more of its members to issue a medical report on the psychiatric condition of Gisselle Elena Zambrano-Loayza and Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza.
[…]
7. To instruct the Secretariat of the Court that once received, the reports be forwarded to the victim, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and to the State of Peru.
8. To grant the victim, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the State of Peru a period of one month to present such observations as they deem necessary regarding those reports.
[…]
29. On September 11, 1998, Gisselle Elena and Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza reported that they had contacted the "Colegio Médico de Perú" in connection with preparation of the report on their psychiatric condition. They also informed the Court that Ms. Carolina Loayza-Tamayo would be representing them in the proceedings before the Court.
30. On October 2, 1998, the "Colegio Médico de Chile" reported that it had commissioned Dr. Roberto von Bennewitz and Dr. Martín Cordero-Allary to do the physical and psychiatric evaluation of the victim.
31. On October 2, 1998, the "Colegio Médico del Perú" reported that it had commissioned Dr. René Flores-Agreda, psychiatrist, to evaluate the psychiatric condition of Gisselle Elena and Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza.
32. On October 7 and 9, 1998, the "Colegio Médico de Chile" presented the expert report submitted by Dr. Roberto von Bennewitz, a forensic physician, and the psychiatric report prepared by Dr. Martín Cordero-Allary on the victim’s state of health. On October 13 of that year, the "Colegio Médico del Perú" presented the reports prepared by Dr. René Flores-Agreda on the health condition of Gisselle Elena and Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza. That same day, the reports were forwarded to the victim, to the Commission and to the State, who were told that under the Court order, any observations they deemed appropriate were to be submitted by no later than November 13, 1998.
33. On November 13, 1998, Peru submitted its observations on the reports in question and challenged their probative value. It also requested that the Court appoint suitable experts for the opinions ordered by the Court in its decision of August 29, 1998.
34. Neither the victim nor the Commission presented any observations on the expert reports submitted.
iv

preliminary considerations
35. The State alleged an irregularity in connection with the filing of the victim’s brief on reparations, because:
how could it be that a 32-page brief was sent by fax from Washington, D.C., in the United States, to San José, Republic of Costa Rica, seat of the Honorable Court, at the same hour (21:55 or 19:53, January 30, 1998)? The Government of Peru wants and demands a reasonable explanation of this irregularity and of why the Court did not reject in limine the extemporaneous filing of [the] evidentiary materials.
36. The Court does not consider it necessary to address this argument at length. The Court’s Secretariat has stated that the document in question was submitted on January 30, which is sufficient for the Court to flatly dismiss the State’s contention of a purported irregularity with this filing.
v

general considerations on the evidence
37. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that:
[i]tems of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto […] Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing party is guaranteed the right of defense.
38. The Court has previously held that its proceedings are not bound by the same formalities that bind domestic courts in their proceedings. It has been the consistent case law of the Court that some latitude is permissible in receiving evidence and that when certain elements are added to the body of evidence, particular attention must be given to the circumstances of the case in question, with due regard for the conditions necessary to preserve the principle of legal certainty and the balanced procedural rights of the parties.
39. This practice also applies to the briefs containing the reparations claims and to the State’s brief commenting on the reparations brief, which are the principal documents at this stage and that in general are subject to the same formalities as the application and reply on the merits insofar as evidence is concerned. Here it is important to recall the Court’s finding that:
the procedural system is a means of attaining justice and that the latter cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities. Keeping within certain timely and reasonable limits, some omissions or delays in complying with procedure may be excused, provided that a suitable balance between justice and legal certainty is preserved (Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 42).
40. Therefore, the Court will address the evidentiary aspects of the instant case within the legal framework thus described.
documentary evidence
41. At the time she submitted her reparations brief, the victim stated that its appendices would be forthcoming. On February 5, 1998, she presented the following documents as evidence:
a) Documents pertaining to the victim’s domicile
(cf. certification of domicile issued by the Banco de la Nación; certification of domicile issued by the National Police Ministry of the Interior of Perú, and made out in the name of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, Appendix I);
b) Birth certificates of the victim, her children and her siblings, and her parent’s marriage certificate
(cf. birth certificates for Gisselle Elena Zambrano-Loayza, Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza and María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, Appendix II; civil marriage certificate for Julio Loayza-Sudario and Adelina Tamayo-Trujillo; birth certificates for Delia Haydée Loayza-Tamayo, Carolina Maida Loayza-Tamayo, William Julio Loayza-Tamayo, Olga Adelina Loayza-Tamayo, Elizabeth Giovanna Loayza-Tamayo and Rubén Edilberto Loayza-Tamayo, Appendix III);
c) Curriculum vitae and personal background of the victim
(cf. curriculum vitae of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo; certificate attesting to the good character of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, issued by the Director, Office of the Deputy Director, OBE Advisory Services, Asociación de Padres de Familia [Parents’ Association] of the Colegio “José Gabriel Condorcanqui” [José Gabriel Condorcanqui High School], November 23, 1993; certification of employment and good character in the name of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, issued by the Director of the “C.E. José Gabriel Condorcanqui”, U.S.E. 07-Rímac, November 24, 1993; certification issued by the Director of the National School of Dramatic Arts, December 15, 1993; memorandum from the head of the Humanities Department to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, dated June 2, 1988; certification issued by the Director of the Universidad de San Martín de Porres concerning María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, April 24, 1989; note from the Universidad de San Martín de Porres, addressed to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, January 14, 1990; circular RNC. 271-91-DEA-FCA-USMP, from the Director of the School of Management to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, dated December 11, 1991; Decision No. 058-92-FCS-SMP of the Universidad de San Martín de Porres, August 12, 1992; certification issued by the Office of the University Personnel Management Office, for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, January 3, 1994; certification of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo’s employment, issued by the Chief of the Office of Personnel and Services of the University of San Martín de Porres, January 5, 1994; certification issued by the Director of the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison, September 11, 1997; degree of “Licenciada” in Education in Social Historical Sciences, awarded to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, March 26, 1985; degree of “Licenciada” in Social Work, awarded to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, July 11, 1991; certification from the National Center of Health-Related Educational Technology concerning María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, Seminar Workshop on “Didactics as Applied to Instruction in Health Sciences”, April 15, 1988; certification from the Ministry of Health concerning María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, May 7, 1987, Seminar Workshop on “Public Health-Sex Education and Family Planning;” record of the Ministry of Health for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, April 22, 1987. Participation in the “First Aid Training Program” course; certification issued by the Office of the Director of the Lima-South Departmental Health Unit for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, May 7, 1987; letter from Data Processing, Health, Medicine and Agriculture Projects, addressed to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, September 4, 1987; degree of “Bachiller” in Social Work, awarded to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo by the Universidad de San Martín de Porres on June 22, 1990; and degree of “Bachiller” in Education, awarded to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo by the Universidad de San Martín de Porres, September 6, 1982, Appendix XXIV; certification issued by the Academic Director of the School of Law of the Universidad Mayor de San Marcos concerning María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, December 17, 1997; and registration reports for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, School of Law, December 16, 1997, Appendix XXV);
d) Documents pertaining to the victim’s employment history
(cf. listing of employment records for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo as of February 6, 1996; certification issued by the Director of the Colegio Nacional “José Gabriel Condorcanqui”, November 19, 1997; certification issued by the Director of the National School of Dramatic Arts, February 15, 1993; certification issued by the head of the Academic Department of the School of Administrative Sciences of the Universidad de San Martín de Porres, March 3, 1993, and certification issued by the Academic Dean of Education and Humanities of the Universidad de San Martín de Porres, February 24, 1993, Appendix XIV);
e) Documents pertaining to the victim’s earnings
(cf. earnings statement for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, January 25, 1993; earnings statement for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, November 13, 1997, Appendix XII; tabulation of earnings of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo as of the date of her detention, February 6, 1993; vouchers from the Ministry of Education made out in the name of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, from January 1993, September 1992, December 1992; a monthly pay slip from the Universidad de San Martín de Porres made out in the name of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, February 1, 1993; and a certification from the Instituto Nacional de Cultura [National Institute of Culture], dated December 19, 1997, Appendix XIII);
f) Documents pertaining to the victim’s current employment status
(cf. resolution No. 0805, July 10, 1996, from the Office of the Director of the Educational Services Unit USE 07 -- Rímac, Appendix VII; official memorandum No. 314-97/DCN”JGC”, dated November 10, 1997, from Aquiles L. Reynoso Lázaro, CH “José Condorcanqui”, to Francisco Javier Herrera Tuesta, Director of the Section II Program of the U.S.E.02; request to the Director of the Educational Services Unit U.S.E. 02-Rímac, from María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, dated November 21, 1997; and Resolution No. 2273 from the Office of the Director of the Educational Services Unit No. 02 Rímac-Independencia-San Martín de Porres, December 17, 1997, Appendix XXVI; request for reinstatement at the “José Gabriel Condorcanqui” Educational Center, dated October 27, 1997, addressed to the Director of the Educational Services Unit 02 Rímac; request for reinstatement on the teaching staff of the School of Dramatic Arts, dated November 27, 1997; request for reinstatement on the teaching staff of the Universidad de San Martín de Porres, dated December 3, 1998; request for reinstatement on the teaching staff of the School of Management of the Universidad de San Martín de Porres, November 26, 1997, Appendix VIII; and request for reinstatement on the teaching staff of the School of Education of the Universidad de San Martín de Porres, dated November 27, 1997, Appendix IX);
g) Documents concerning the victim’s physical and psychological condition from 1993 to 1997
(cf. listing of medical reports for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo from 1993 to 1997, issued by physicians at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison; official memorandum no. 718-D-EP-msm/CH, dated December 7, 1993, addressed to Carolina Loayza-Tamayo; medical report no. 024-93-USP-EPRCEMCH, dated November 30, 1993, addressed to the Director of the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison; official memorandum No. 374-D-EP-MSM/CH, dated July 31, 1996, to Carolina Loayza-Tamayo; official memorandum No. 194-USP-EPMSMCH-96, dated July 25, 1996, to the Director of the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison; official memorandum No. 418-D-EP-MSM/CH dated September 16, 1996, to Carolina Loayza-Tamayo; official memorandum No. 247-96-USP-EPMAMCH, dated September 9, 1996, to Peruvian National Police Colonel Enrique Castillo León, Director of the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison; report No. 02-97-EPMSMCH.- Serv.Ps., to Peruvian National Police Colonel Enrique Castillo León; December 17, 1997 request from María Elena Loayza-Tamayo to the Director of the “Arzobispo Loayza” National General Hospital; copy of a hospital services card for the “Arzobispo Loayza” National General Hospital, in the name of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo; certification of medical attention received, for the date on which María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was examined at the “Arzobispo Loayza” National General Hospital; medical report of the “Arzobispo Loayza” National General Hospital, dated January 5, 1998, on the clinical history of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, Appendix X; note dated January 9, 1998, from María Elena Loayza-Tamayo to the Director of the National Institute of Prisons; August 28, 1997 request from Carolina Loayza-Tamayo to the Director of the National Institute of Prisons; and a note from Carolina Loayza-Tamayo dated June 10, 1997, to the Director of the National Institute of Prisons, Appendix XI);
h) Documents pertaining to the victim’s present state of health
(cf. medical-psychiatric evaluation of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, prepared by Dr. Shirley Lilliana Llerena Mora, January 24, 1998, Appendix XXXVIII; letter No. 671-97-D-CMP, dated December 22, 1997, from the "Colegio Médico del Perú" to Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, and letter No. 101-97-CDDHH, dated December 19, 1997, from the "Colegio Médico del Perú", Human Rights Committee, to Francisco Sánchez Moreno-Ramos, Appendix XXXVI);
i) Documents pertaining to expenses incurred for food, toiletries and articles of personal hygiene, materials for handicrafts, medicines, and clothing for the victim during her incarceration
(cf. chart of monthly expenses for groceries delivered to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison and receipts from various establishments, Appendix XV; chart of toiletries and articles of personal hygiene delivered monthly to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison, Appendix XVI; photographs of some of the handicrafts made by María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, Appendix XVII; chart depicting the quarterly expenditures and table of one-time outlays for materials that María Elena Loayza-Tamayo used for the handicrafts she made at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison, and receipts from various establishments where the materials for the handicrafts done by María Elena Loayza-Tamayo were purchased, Appendix XVIII; chart of medications prescribed for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo while she was at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison; medical prescriptions and receipts for medications purchased for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo from 1996 to 1997, Appendix XIX; chart illustrating annual expenditures for clothing, sleepwear, bedding, shoes and the like, for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo while she was at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison, and receipts for articles of clothing purchased for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, Appendix XX);
j) Chart of transportation expenses incurred by the victim’s next of kin to visit her and deliver groceries to her at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison
(cf. chart of transportation expenses to visit and deliver supplies to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo and a photocopy of the June 25, 1997 issue of the “El Peruano” official journal containing Supreme Decree No. 005-97-JUS, headlined “Regulations governing the living arrangements and gradual rehabilitation system for inmates prosecuted for and/or convicted of the crime of terrorism and/or treason);
k) A video
(cf. video, Appendix IV);
l) Documents pertaining to the construction of the victim’s residence
(cf. repayment voucher No. 0551-93, Banco de Materiales loan contract No. 024612/342430, dated May 19, 1992, Appendix XXVII);
m) Documents related to the educational and medical expenses of the victim’s children
(cf. list of expenses for the education of Paul Zambrano-Loayza, from 1993 to 1997, and document from the “San Basilio” Coeducational Private School certifying the courses taken by Paul Zambrano-Loayza, Appendix V; chart of expenses for the education of Gisselle Elena Loayza-Tamayo from 1994 to 1997; receipts from the Universidad de Lima made out to Gisselle Elena Zambrano-Loayza and dated April 30, May 30, and September 28, 1994; certificate from the Universidad de Lima, made out to Gisselle Elena Zambrano-Loayza; five receipts from the Universidad de Lima; a letter from Carolina Loayza-Tamayo to the Director of Personnel of the Universidad de Lima, September 23, 1995, and the high school record of Gisselle Zambrano-Loayza, Appendix VI; chart of medical expenses of the children of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo and receipts from Gisselle Zambrano-Loayza and Paul Zambrano-Loayza for medical expenses);
n) Documents pertaining to the representations before the Peruvian authorities and the inter-American system on the victim’s behalf
(cf. chart of remedies filed with the Peruvian judicial and non-judicial authorities, with the inter-American system and with other international organizations recognized by Peru; photocopy of Supreme Decree No. 135-96 EF, titled “Substitution of Several Articles of the Regulations Governing the Special Income Tax System,” published in the December 31, 1996 issue of the “El Peruano” official journal, Appendix XXVIII; Chart of Minimum Representation Fees suggested by the Lima Bar Association and receipt for Carolina Loayza-Tamayo’s purchase of the table, December 11, 1997, Appendix XXIX; expenses for photocopying documents that Carolina Loayza-Tamayo presented on the victim’s behalf in various proceedings, and photocopying receipts, Appendix XXX; chart of expenditures for telephone calls and telephone bills received from the Compañía Peruana de Teléfonos, S.A., and from Telefonía del Perú, Appendix XXXI; chart of expenses incurred for mailing correspondence and postage receipts, Appendix XXXII; chart of expenses for sending the petition and application for the Loayza Tamayo Case by fax and receipts for fax transmission of the petition and application in the Loayza Tamayo Case, Appendix XXXIII; costs of the courier services to send the correspondence involved in processing the petition and application in the Loayza Tamayo Case and receipts for courier-sent correspondence for processing the petition and application in the Loayza Tamayo case, Appendix XXXIV; and invoices for airfares for travel by Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, Appendix XXXV);
o) Documents pertaining to the work of Ms. Carolina Loayza-Tamayo
(cf. letter from Dr. Oscar de la Puente-Raygada, Chairman of the Cabinet and Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated October 1, 1992, addressed to the Public Prosecutor; letter from Dr. Oscar de la Puente-Raygada, Chairman of the Cabinet and Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated February 2, 1993, addressed to the Minister of State in the Office of Economics and Finance, Appendix XXII; a resolution dated January 25, 1993, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Supreme Resolution No. 148-92-JUS, September 25, 1992; memorandum dated February 2, 1993, from Carolina Loayza-Tamayo to the Minister’s Office, and a memorandum from Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, dated January 25, 1993, to the Minister, Appendix XXIII); and
p) Documents pertaining to the exchange rate between the local currency of Peru and the United States dollar
(cf. information comparing the exchange rate (new soles per United States dollar, Appendix XXVII).
42. The State objected to the inclusion of the appendices filed by the victim using arguments that concerned admissibility and probative value. In the case of the admissibility arguments, it alleged that the appendices to the victim’s reparations brief were not presented within the time limit established by the Court, which had expired on January 31, 1998; this, it argued, "[would] vitiate their merit or value as evidence. "
43. The Court notes that its practice has always been to allow the initial submission of applications to be done by fax or telex (Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure), with the original documents and their appendices submitted within a reasonable time period thereafter. The Court decides what constitutes a reasonable time period on a case-by-case basis (Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 34).
44. The victim submitted the appendices six days after the body of the brief, and five days after the specified deadline. In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the American Convention, this five-day delay could not possibly invalidate information pertinent to determining what the reparations should be, especially when one considers that particular care was taken to ensure procedural balance. At the time the extension was granted on March 31, 1998, the President specified that the victim and the Commission had two months and 25 calendar days in which to present their arguments and evidence, and granted the State the same amount of time to present its observations and evidence.
45. Thus, Peru had the same amount of time to conduct a study and prepare its arguments on the reparations briefs and their appendices. Hence, the argument made by the State that the delay in filing the appendices to the victim’s brief was prejudicial to the State is inadmissible.
46. Given the foregoing, the Court is admitting the appendices to the victim’s reparations brief.
47. The State also questioned the evidentiary value of some of the receipts presented by the victim, which did not show the names and surnames of the persons who incurred the respective expenses. Here, Perú alluded specifically to appendices XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX (slips no. 09119, 4275, 09402 and 117748), XX, XXI, XXX, XXXII, XXXIII and the chart contained in appendix XXVIII.
48. When it examined the appendices being contested, the Court found that in some cases the victim had presented charts of estimated costs (cf. appendices XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXX, XXXII and XXXIII), apparently prepared as a reference aid. In some cases, the figures given were supported by receipts and vouchers; in other cases the amounts shown were described by the victim herself as “estimates” and approximate figures for certain undocumented outlays. Moreover, the charts submitted as Appendix XXVIII are an organized layout of representations alleged to have been made by victim’s counsel before Peruvian and international authorities, including the organs of the inter-American system.
49. The Court finds that the charts in question do not constitute evidence. They are documents that illustrate the victim’s claims and supplement the reparations brief. For that reason they will not be added to the body of evidence in the instant Case.
50. The Court is compelled to point out that certain discrepancies noted detract from the value of these tables, even as reference aids. For example, there are mathematical errors in the figures shown on some of the chart
(cf. list of expenses for the education of Paul Zambrano-Loayza, Appendix V; chart of expenses for the education of Gisselle Zambrano-Loayza, Appendix VI; chart of toiletries and articles of personal hygiene delivered monthly to the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison for María Elena Loayza, Appendix XVI; chart of one-time outlays for materials that María Elena Loayza used for the handicrafts she made at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison, Appendix XVIII; chart of medications prescribed for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo while she was at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison, Appendix XIX; chart of expenses for photocopying documents that Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, the victim’s sister and attorney, presented on the victim’s behalf in various proceedings, Appendix XXX; chart of expenses for international telephone calls made from the telephone installed in the home of the victim’s attorney and sister, Appendix XXXI; list of expenses for mailed correspondence, Appendix XXXII; chart of fax-transmission expenses for sending the petition and application in the Loayza Tamayo Case, Appendix XXXIII);
moreover, when the figures given in the appendices and in the body of the reparations brief are compared, it is found that the amounts claimed for the same items are expressed in a given number of soles in the chart, but in an equal number of United States dollars in the body of the reparations brief, as if there were parity between the two currencies
(cf. chart of monthly expenses for groceries vs. the brief; chart of expenses for toiletries and articles of personal hygiene vs. the brief; chart illustrating annual expenditures for clothing vs. the brief).
The Court will take these factors into account when it examines the corresponding forms of reparations.
51. The other documents challenged by the State were receipts for assorted purchases of materials, medications, wearing apparel, photocopies and correspondence (cf. appendices XV, XVIII, XIX (slips no. 09119, 4275, 09402 and 117748), XX, XXX, XXXII and XXXIII). The Court notes that these documents did not name the author of the respective transaction, which makes them less credible. Consequently, their specific weight as evidence will be gauged by a standard often invoked by the Court, to the effect that:
[i]n the exercise of its judicial functions and when ascertaining and weighing the evidence necessary to decide the cases before it, the Court may, in certain circumstances, make use of both circumstantial evidence and indications or presumptions on which to base its pronouncements when they lead to consistent conclusions as regards the facts of the case… (Gangaram Panday Case, Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 49).
  1   2   3   4   5


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page