HAVING SEEN:

The background of this case, namely, the following:

1. On September 17, 1986, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received the following complaint:
   

   NAMES: ELEODORO LOPEZ BALLARDO, RUBEN LOPEZ LOYOLA, AND BAUTISTA RODRIGUEZ ARCE. According to reports, the three men were detained by members of the Republican Guard on March 1, in the village of Pichincha, near Yanahuanca. On March 1986, the Armed Forces Command of Cerro de Pasco issued a communique (number 12/CCFFAA-RRPP) reporting the occurrence of an armed clash the previous day and the capture of three "subversives", including one who was identified in the communique as Walter Lopez Loyola. The others referred to were believed to be Eleodoro Lopez Ballardo, father of the above and Bautista Rodriguez. Since then however, no further information on the three or their whereabouts have been made public by the armed forces, and the continued detention of the three has reportedly been denied to relatives and members of local human rights groups. The Provincial Prosecutor has not been informed of the arrests, and the prisoners have not been brought before a court, charged with a crime, or released. Their whereabouts remain unknown.
   

   By note of October 17, 1986, the Commission requested the relevant information from the Government of Peru, conveying to it the pertinent parts of the complaint in accordance with Article 34 of the Regulations. The request was reiterated in letters dated January 17, 1988, June 7, 1988, and February 17, 1989.

CONSIDERING:

1. That the Government of Peru has not replied to the request for information made by the Commission in regard to this case.
   

2. That the nature of the events described in the complaint precludes application to this case of the friendly settlement procedure provided for in Article 48 (1) f of the American Convention on Human Rights, to which Peru is a party.
   

   It should be kept in mind in this connection, that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its opinion of June 26, 1987, concerning Preliminary Objections in the Velasquez Rodriguez case, interpreted Article 48 (1) f as follows:
   

   Taken literally, the wording of Article 48 (1) f (...) would seem to establish a compulsory procedure. Nevertheless, the Court believes that, if the phrase is interpreted within the context of the Convention, it is clear that the Commission should attempt such friendly settlement only when the circumstances of the controversy make that opinion suitable or necessary, at the Commission's sole discretion.
   

   Farther on, the Court confirms the practice followed by the Commission in cases of forced disappearance, adding:
   

   That (...) when the forced disappearance of a person at the hands of a State's authorities is reported and that State denies that such acts have taken place, it is very difficult to reach a friendly settlement that will reflect respect for the rights to life, to humane treatment and to personal liberty.
   

3. That Article 42 of the Regulations of the Commission provides as follows:
   

   The facts reported in the petition whose pertinent parts have been transmitted to the government of the State in reference shall be presumed to be true if, during the maximum period set by the Commission under the provisions of Article 34 paragraph 5, the government has not provided the pertinent information, as long as other evidence does not lead to a different conclusion.
   

4. In its reports on the situation of human rights, the Commission has vehemently condemned this grievous phenomenon of forced disappearance of persons, stating in various documents that ... this procedure is cruel and inhuman and that such disappearance is not only an arbitrary deprivation of liberty but also an extremely serious threat to the integrity, the safety and the very life of the victim (Annual Report 1978, 1980-1981, 1982-1983, 1985-1986, 1986-1987 and special reports by country, such as OEA/Ser.L/V/II.49 doc. 19, 1980 (Argentina), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66 doc. 17, 1985 (Chile), and OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, doc. 16, 1985 (Guatemala)).
   

   For its part, the General Assembly of the OAS has in various resolutions (see RES. 443 (IX-0/79), 510 (X-0/80), 543 (XI-0/81), 618 (XII-0/82), 666 (XIII-0/83), and 742 (XIV-0/84)) stressed the need for an immediate end to this practice in countries where forced disappearances have occurred, urging governments to take the necessary steps to ascertain the fate of those persons. In addition, as proposed by the Commission, the General Assembly of the OAS has declared that the forced disappearance of persons in the Americas is a crime against humanity (see Resolutions 666 (X-III-0/83), and 742 (XIV-0/84).
   

   In deciding the Velasquez Rodriguez case on July 29, 1988, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in turn, held as follows:
   

   The practice of disappearances, in addition to directly violating many provisions of the Convention, such as those noted above, constitutes a radical breach of the treaty in that it shows a crass abandonment of the values which emanate from the concept of human dignity and of the most basic principles of the inter-American system and the Convention. (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C., No. 4).
   
   

RESOLVES:

1. To presume the truth of the events reported in the communication of September 17, 1986, with regard to the arrest and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Eleodoro Lopez Ballardo, Mr. Ruben Lopez Loyola, and Mr. Bautista Rodriguez Arce.
   

2. To declare that the events described in the complaint constitute an extremely serious violation of the right to life (Article 4), the right to security and integrity of the person (Article 5), and the right to personal liberty (Article 7) under the American Convention on Human Rights, to which Peru is a party.
   

3. To recommend to the Government of Peru that it proceed with all possible speed to investigate the facts and to sanction with the severest penalties those responsible for the arrest and disappearance of Mr. Eleodoro López Ballardo, Mr. Ruben Lopez Loyola, and Mr. Bautista Rodriguez Arce.
   

4. To ask the Government of Perú to advise the Commission within 90 days of the measures it has taken in conformity with this resolution. Should the Government of Peru fail to present its comments within that time, the Commission, in accordance with Article 63 g of its Regulations, shall include this resolution in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.
   

5. To convey this resolution to the Government of Peru and to the complainant.