2 II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. The petition was received by the office of the OAS in Peru on October 14, 1993. On October 4, 1994, the petitioner delivered a letter to the OAS office in Peru, addressed to the IACHR Chair, in which he requested that his petition be processed. The petition was received by the IACHR on August 5, 1998. The petitioner provided additional information on April 9 and December 8, 1999; on September 1, 2000; and on January 21, 2002. The relevant parts of the petition were forwarded to the State on November 11, 2002, the date on which the Commission opened a file on the case. In that communication, the IACHR asked the State to submit its observations within a period of two months. On January 15, 2003, the State requested an extension, which was granted by the IACHR for a period of 30 calendar days beginning on February 7, 2003, the date on which that communication was sent. On March 13, 2003, the State submitted observations. 6. The petitioner provided additional information on February 14 and 26, June 2, and August 21, 2003; June 9, 2005; and September 11, 2007. These communications were duly forwarded to the State. 7. The State sent additional information on April 4, 2003, and May 22, 2007. 8. On January 12, 2008, and February 17, 2009, the petitioner requested a public hearing before the IACHR; these requests were rejected by the IACHR on February 14, 2008, and March 10, 2009. In addition, on February 14, 2003, the petitioner requested precautionary measures, which were denied by the Commission on February 21, 2003. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioners 9. The petitioner indicates that, beginning in 1986, he had worked as an electrician operator in the maintenance department of the Ceper Pirelli S.A. company. The petitioner asserts that he was “unjustly and arbitrarily” dismissed on June 26, 1989. The petitioner moreover alleges that at the time of his dismissal he was acting as president of the Electoral Committee of the labor union at that company. He also asserts that the grounds cited by the company for his dismissal refer to alleged acts of “defamation and libel [against] Company directors,” based on a news report in which he is alleged to have insulted the company. 10. The petitioner asserts that as a result of his dismissal, he filed a lawsuit for “classification of dismissal” in the Fifteenth Labor Court, which ruled in his favor and found the dismissal to be unfounded. The petitioner alleges that the judgment was appealed by the Ceper Pirelli S.A. company to the Second Labor Court, which reversed the previous judgment and declared the dismissal to be wellfounded. In response to that judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal for review and reconsideration, as 2 well as an appeal to have the judgment set aside, both of which were denied. 11. The petitioner also asserts that he filed an amparo action in the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court (now called the Third Specialized Chamber of the Lima Superior Court), which ruled against him. He appealed to the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court to have the decision set aside. That court declared his lawsuit to be inadmissible, based on which the petitioner filed an appeal for review so that it could be heard by the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court, an appeal that was rejected. In 1996, the petitioner filed a special appeal petitioning the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court, in view of the fact that there was now a Constitutional Court in operation in Peru and new articles of the Constitution stipulating that the last instance in which guarantee actions are settled is the Constitutional Court. That appeal was dismissed, as was the petitioner’s appeal of that decision. In August 1997, the petitioner filed an appeal against the refusal to allow the appeal (recurso de queja), 2 Annexes to the initial submission.