Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 112, 1969

Caso núm. 476 (Perú) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 17-MAR-66 - Cerrado

1. 15. This case was examined by the Committee for the first time at its session in October 1966, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report, which is contained in paragraphs 287 to 298 of its 93rd Report. This report was approved by the Governing Body at its 167th Session (November 1966).

16. It was alleged that Mr. Dario Cabrera Trillo, a rural trade union leader, was detained by the Military Intelligence Service of Peru on 2 May 1966 as he was going to the airport to travel to Mexico in order to attend a meeting of the Latin American Peasant Federation. According to the complainants, Mr. Cabrera Trillo was kept incommunicado in the Control and Safety Section of the State until 6 May and had frequently suffered persecution at the hands of the police because of his energetic actions in organising and defending the peasants of Peru.

1. 17. In its observations dated 21 June 1966 the Government stated that according to the information at its disposal Mr. Cabrera Trillo was a persistent labour agitator in the Satipo region and had participated in the Revolutionary Left-Wing Movement, which was responsible for beginning the guerrilla war in Peru. He was therefore placed at the disposal of the Second Police District, an organisation operating under a code that had been established for many years, and amply guaranteed the right to defence of accused persons.
2. 18. In the light of these facts the Committee in paragraph 298 of its 93rd Report recommended the Governing Body:
3. ......................................................................................................................................................
4. (a) to take note of the Government's communication dated 21 June 1966, from which it appears that the trade union leader, Mr. Dario Cabrera Trillo, who, according to the complainants had been detained on 2 May 1966, was placed at the disposal of the Second Police District on a charge of agitation and participation in a guerrilla movement;
5. (b) to request the Government to be good enough to specify, as soon as possible, the exact nature of the offences with which Mr. Cabrera Trillo is charged and keep it informed of the outcome of the trial, supplying the text of the court verdict and the reasons adduced therein as soon as it is handed down;
6. (c) to draw the attention of the Government to the importance it has always attached to the principle of prompt trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences;
7. (d) bearing in mind the principle referred to above, to request the Government to be good enough to specify the procedural rules applied by the Second Police District;
8. (e) to take note of the present interim report, it being understood that the Committee will report further to the Governing Body when it has received the additional information requested from the Government under subparagraphs (b) and (d) above.
9. 19. These conclusions were communicated to the Government, which in a letter dated 24 May 1968 forwarded a communication dated 20 March 1968 from the Court Martial of the Second Police District it had received through the President of the Central Military Justice Council.
10. 20. According to this communication, the Court Martial in question was engaged in continuing to prepare the case against Mr. Cabrera Trillo, who was charged with an offence against state security. The public hearing was to take place on 19 April 1968.
11. 21. In its observations the Government reported that the proceedings showed that the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged in that he had maintained close links with the leaders of the guerrilla force operating in the central area of the country, taking advantage of his position as General Secretary of the Satipo Peasant Federation in 1965. According to the Government, the accused had also commissioned other persons to collect arms, which were subsequently used against the forces of public order.
12. 22. Accordingly, continued the Government, the Public Prosecutor called for one year's imprisonment for Mr. Cabrera Trillo. In the meantime he has been granted provisional liberty on bail since 29 August 1966.
13. 23. At its session in November 1968 the Committee, after consideration of the information analysed in paragraphs 20 to 22 above, requested the Director-General to ask the Government to be good enough to inform the Committee of the result of the hearing on 19 April 1968 and of the present position regarding this case and to forward a copy of the verdict and the reasons thereof when available.
14. 24. This request was communicated to the Government. The latter replied by a communication dated 9 April 1969 to which a copy of the communication of 6 February 1969 of the Central Military Justice Council of Peru is attached.
15. 25. It appears from the Government's reply that Mr. Cabrera Trillo was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, having been found guilty of an offence against state security on the basis of facts given in paragraph 21 above, by the Court Martial of the Second Police District. This verdict was confirmed, on appeal, by the Central Military Justice Council on 10 September 1968. This sentence seems to have been completed, deduction being made of the time already spent in prison by the individual concerned.
16. 26. In the light of information at the disposal of the Committee, it would appear that Mr. Cabrera Trillo, arrested on 2 May 1966, was released on bail on 29 August 1966. He was sentenced for an offence against state security in the first instance to six months' imprisonment, and this verdict was confirmed in the second instance; it would also appear that the individual in question has now regained his freedom.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 27. In these circumstances, while maintaining its observations contained in subparagraph (c) of the text quoted in paragraph 18 above, the Committee, in view of the fact that the events referred to in this case date back to 1966 and primarily because it would appear that the accused has regained his liberty, considers that no useful purpose would be served in pursuing the matter and therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.