During the conflict between armed groups and government forces that lasted from the 1980s until 2000, the government of Alberto Fujimori issued a law decree on April 6, 1992, ordering “the reorganization of the National Penitentiary Institute (INPE) and put[ting] the National Police of Peru in charge of the control of security at the penitentiaries.” The execution known as “Operative Transfer 1” in the maximum security prison Miguel Castro Castro was conducted under this law decree.  Although the official objective of the operation was to transfer the women inmates to another prison, the real objective was to “a premeditated attack” on the prisoners occupying two specific pavilions of the Miguel Castro Prison through the use of snipers, explosives, grenades, gas bombs, and tear gas. The inmates in these pavilions had been accused or sentenced for terrorism crimes or treason.  Ultimately, the acts that took place between May 2 and 9, 1992, under “Operative Transfer 1” resulted in the death of at least 42 inmates, injured 182 inmates, and subjected another 322 inmates to a cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.  Those that survived the attack were subjected to constant physical and psychological mistreatment amounting to torture. These included the wounded and pregnant women. Some wounded inmates that were taken to hospitals died from not receiving medications or medical care. Inmates taken to the Police Sanity Hospital, which included women, were subjected to derogatory treatment, such as being forced to strip off their clothes and remaining nude throughout their time in the hospital and women inmates being subjected to abrupt vaginal “inspection” by hooded people.

The Commission submitted the case before the Court, alleging violations of Articles 4 (right to life) and 5 (right to humane treatment) of the American Convention with respect to “at least 42” inmates that died; the violation of Article 5 (right to humane treatment) with respect to “at least 175” inmates that were injured and of 322 inmates “that having resulted [allegedly] uninjured were submitted to a cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment;” and for the violation of Articles 8(1) (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the Convention.