REPORT No. 3/17
CASE 12.772
MERITS
OSCAR MUELLE FLORES
PERU
JANUARY 27, 2017

I.

SUMMARY

1.
On April 8, 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the
Commission,” “the Inter-American Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition initially lodged on his own
behalf by Oscar Muelle Flores (hereinafter “the petitioner” or "the alleged victim"). That petition alleged that
the Republic of Peru (hereinafter "the State," "the Peruvian State," or "Peru") bore international responsibility
for failure to comply with two judgments for enforcement of rights (amparo), handed down in 1993 and 1999,
which recognized the petitioner's right to receive a pension as a former worker at the State-owned Tintaya
mine.
2.
The State acknowledged that the two "amparo" suits filed by Mr. Muelle were declared wellfounded and that judicial proceedings were under way to determine the specific pension Mr. Muelle would
receive. It indicated that a court would rule on the benefits to which the alleged victim was entitled. It stressed
that Mr. Muelle had received all due judicial guarantees during the various proceedings that had been initiated.
3.
After analyzing the information available, the Commission concluded that the Peruvian State
is responsible for violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, private property, and judicial protection
recognized in Articles 8 (1), 21, and 25.2.c) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations
contained in Articles 1 (1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Oscar Muelle Flores.
II.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR

4.
The proceedings during the admissibility stage are described in Admissibility Report No.
106/10 of July 16, 2010.1 The IACHR declared the petition admissible in respect of the rights recognized in
Articles, 8, 21, and 25 of the American Convention. The Commission declared the argument regarding alleged
violation of Article 24 of said instrument inadmissible.
5.
On July 21, 2010, the Commission notified the parties of the admissibility report. The IACHR
also placed itself at the disposal of the parties in order to facilitate a possible friendly settlement. Neither of the
parties responded to the offer to initiate a friendly settlement procedure. The petitioner presented his
additional observations on the merits on October 30, 2010. The State presented its additional observations on
the merits on April 8, 2011. Subsequently, the Commission received communications from both parties,2 which
were duly forwarded from one to the other.
III.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A.

Position of the petitioner

6.
The petitioner alleged that the State bears international responsibility for failing to comply
with two "amparo" judgments, handed down in 1993 and 1994, which recognized his pension rights as a

1 IACHR, Report No. 106/10, Petition 147-98, Admissibility, Oscar Muelle Flores, Peru, July 16, 2010. Available at:
http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2010eng/PEAD147-98EN.DOC.
2 The petitioner's communications were sent on October 30, 2010; July 18, 2011; September 8, 2012; and June 10, 2013. For its
part, the State sent communications on April 8, 2011; December 2, 2011; March 21, 2012, December 19, 2012; and January 29, 2014.

1

Select target paragraph3