## Facts

- On November 3, 1991, masked, heavily armed men entered a building in the Barrios Altos neighborhood of Lima during a fundraising gathering.
- The assailants forced people to the floor and fired indiscriminately for approximately two minutes, killing fifteen civilians and seriously injuring four.
- Investigations attributed the attack to Peruvian Army personnel linked to the “Colina Group,” associated with clandestine counterterrorism operations during Peru’s internal conflict.
- In 1995, Peru enacted Amnesty Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492, granting broad amnesty for human rights violations committed between 1980 and 1995 and barring or terminating related criminal proceedings.
- The amnesty laws prevented effective domestic investigation and prosecution of the Barrios Altos killings and injuries and foreclosed judicial remedies for victims and their relatives.
- The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights after Peru did not fully comply with the Commission’s recommendations.
- Before the Court, Peru recognized international responsibility for the massacre and for the consequences of the amnesty laws.

## Issues

1. Whether Peru violated the right to life under Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights for the fifteen killings.
2. Whether Peru violated the right to humane treatment under Article 5 for the four survivors and, as relevant, their relatives.
3. Whether Peru violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection under Articles 8 and 25 by adopting and applying amnesty laws that blocked investigation, prosecution, and remedies.
4. Whether Peru violated Articles 1(1) and 2 by failing to respect and ensure Convention rights and by adopting domestic measures (amnesty laws) that impeded enforcement of those rights.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously held Peru internationally responsible for violating Article 4 with respect to the fifteen persons killed.
- The Court unanimously held Peru violated Article 5 with respect to the four survivors who were seriously injured.
- The Court held Peru violated Articles 8 and 25 as to survivors and next of kin because the amnesty laws prevented effective investigation, prosecution, and access to judicial remedies.
- The Court held Peru violated Articles 1(1) and 2 due to enacting and applying the amnesty laws in connection with the underlying violations.
- The Court declared Amnesty Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492 incompatible with the Convention and without legal effect.
- The Court ordered Peru to investigate the facts, identify and punish all responsible persons, and provide reparations, including compensation and measures of satisfaction and non-repetition.
- In a later interpretation judgment, the Court clarified that the amnesty laws’ lack of legal effect could not obstruct investigation and punishment in this case or other similar cases of serious human rights violations in Peru.

## Legal Principles

- Blanket amnesties for serious human rights violations (including extrajudicial executions, torture, and forced disappearance) are incompatible with the American Convention and are legally ineffective.
- States must ensure Convention rights (Art. 1(1)) and adopt domestic measures giving effect to those rights (Art. 2); legislation designed to block investigation and punishment breaches those obligations.
- Victims and relatives have a right to effective judicial guarantees and protection (Arts. 8 and 25); remedies must function in practice, not merely exist in form.
- The State has an affirmative duty to investigate, prosecute, and punish serious human rights violations; measures that institutionalize impunity violate the Convention.
- Recognition of international responsibility does not discharge the State’s obligations to provide truth, accountability, and full reparations.

## Conclusion

The Inter-American Court held Peru responsible for the Barrios Altos massacre and ruled that Peru’s self-amnesty laws were void under the American Convention because they blocked accountability and denied effective judicial protection; Peru was required to investigate, prosecute, punish, and provide full reparations, and the amnesty laws could not bar similar proceedings in other serious human rights cases.


Chumbipuma Aguirre v. Peru (Barrios Altos Case), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 75 (2001)