Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru
Burden of Proof | Obligation to Prevent | Deprivation of Liberty | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate
The Court emphasised that the State was in the position of a guarantor, given that the last available information on Mr. Munárriz Escobar was that he was in the custody of the State. Therefore, the State had the burden of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened to the victim and to refute the presumption of its responsibility. The Court highlighted that the authorities did not provide information regarding the fate of the victim after his detention, and concluded that the State did not carry out investigations or searches with due diligence or within a reasonable time.
September 20, 2018
Article 1(1) [ACHR], Article 3 [ACHR], Article 4(1) [ACHR], Article 5(1) [ACHR], Article 5(2) [ACHR], Article 7(1) [ACHR], Article 8(1) [ACHR], Article 1(a) [IACFDP], Article 1(b) [IACFDP]
Articles not violated / not dealt with
Article 2 [ACHR], Article 3 [IACFDP], Article 1 [IACPPT], Article 6 [IACPPT], Article 8 [IACPPT]
Facts of the Case
Mr. Walter Munárriz Escobar was disappeared on 20 March 1999 following an unregistered arrest. The arrest was in response to a complaint by a police officer's wife, alleging that Mr. Munárriz Escobar tried to break into her hotel room.