7 for these statements and alleged that they are the responsibility of the journalist who wrote the article. Finally, the petitioner alleged that even if it were to be proved that he was the author of the statements, they did not constitute legal grounds for his dismissal, given that the insults or injuries established in Article 2.5 of the 1979 Constitution of Peru (currently Article 2.7) may not refer to legal persons, but only to natural persons. He also believes that these statements would in any case be protected by the freedom of expression that shields union leaders in the context of a labor conflict. 34. On another point, the petitioner alleges that the domestic legal proceedings had multiple procedural irregularities and that the judges who heard his case did not respect the principles of impartiality and independence. The petitioner indicates specifically that the Second Labor Court received his pleading on August 2, 1991, but did not take it into account in its judgment of August 8, 1991. 35. The State, for its part, argued that the petitioner, by not having sent a letter seeking to rectify the information published by La Razón, took on what was published as his own. 36. With regard to violation of due process, the State argued that there were no irregularities of any kind and that an unfavorable judgment does not imply a violation of due process. In terms of the rejection of the amparo action and other appeals filed by the petitioner as a consequence, the State argued that such an action was not admissible against a "judicial or discretionary ruling arising from a regular proceeding." 37. The Commission believes that, taking into account the allegations and information provided by the petitioner and the State, this case could involve a violation of the petitioner's human rights. In effect, if the petitioner's allegations are proved with regard to procedural irregularities in domestic legal proceedings, these facts could constitute a violation of the provisions established in Article 8 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that international instrument. 38. Moreover, the petitioner was allegedly dismissed for having expressed certain opinions that the company in which he worked considered to be defamatory. According to what was alleged by the State itself and as it appears from the documentation in the file, the dismissal was based on Article 5(h) of 19 Law 24.514, which classifies the injury of an employer as a "serious offense." Bearing in mind the petitioner's position as union leader and inter-American jurisprudence in the area of freedom of expression, the Commission believes, based on the principle of iura novit curia, that it is appropriate to study the merits of the case in order to identify whether the published statements for which the petitioner was dismissed were protected by Article 13 of the American Convention, that is, whether the dismissal occurred as a result of the legitimate exercise of his right to freedom of expression or whether, to the contrary, the statements fall outside the realm of protection of that right and therefore the work-related sanction imposed on him is not objectionable. 39. On another point, the Commission concludes that it does not have enough evidence to infer an alleged characterization of violations of Articles 24 and 25 of the Convention on the part of the Peruvian State. 40. Thus, in the instant case the Commission concludes that the petitioner has lodged complaints that, if they are compatible with other requirements and are proved to be true, could characterize a violation of rights protected by the American Convention, specifically those established in Articles 8 (fair trial) and 13 (freedom of thought and expression) in conjunction with Articles 1(1) (obligation to respect and guarantee rights) and 2 (obligation to adopt measures in domestic law). V. CONCLUSIONS 19 Article 5(h) of Law 24.514, regulating the Right to Stability in the Workplace, establishes that it is a serious offense "to incur in an act of violence, serious lack of discipline, or serious offense of word causing injury to the employer, its representatives, ranking personnel, or co-workers, within the workplace; or outside the workplace, when the facts stem directly from the work relationship...."