4 9 and Political Rights; the right to work; the right to equality; and the right to judicial protection. The petitioner likewise indicates that, according to Article 39 of the Amparo Law, in conjunction with Article 303 of the Constitution, his constitutional rights were violated. B. Position of the State 16. The State alleges that the petitioner made statements to the media outlet La Razón in June 1989, in his capacity as President of the Industrial Commission’s Electoral Committee. The State stresses that in that publication, the petitioner allegedly indicated that his employers used “blackmail and coercion” and denounced the existence of “arrangements between the company and the Directorship of the Office of General Participation of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism, and Trade.” The State alleges that the petitioner had described his co-workers as “commoners subservient to the interests of the bosses.” This was apparently considered injurious by his employers, who dismissed the petitioner on July 1, 10 1989. 17. The State alleges that in domestic jurisdiction, during the investigation connected with the appeal filed by the Ceper-Pirelli company, in which it sought a reversal of the judgment of first instance that had found in favor of Mr. Lagos del Campo, the petitioner was questioned about the reasons he had not issued a correction letter to La Razón to rectify the statements that were attributed to him and that he was denying that he had made. The State reports that the petitioner responded that “I did not issue any 11 letter to La Razón because I did not consider it to be injurious.” According to the State, that was evidence of the petitioner’s agreement with what had been published. 18. The State argues that the petitioner’s dismissal was based on Article 5(h) of Law 24.514, as determined in the judgment of the Second Labor Court, which set aside the judgment of first instance 12 in the petitioner’s favor. That law classifies the injury of an employer as a “serious offense.” The State indicates that the rejection of the writ of amparo subsequently filed by the petitioner was justified in not 13 allowing guarantee actions against a “judicial or discretionary ruling arising from a regular proceeding.” 19. With respect to the alleged violation of due process, the State believes that the decisionmaker has the discretion to evaluate the evidence presented by both parties and that the fact of obtaining an unfavorable judgment is not necessarily a consequence of having taken into account only the allegations made by one of the parties. The State believes, in that regard, that an unfavorable decision does not imply, per se, a violation of due process. The State alleges that the proceedings that unfolded in Peruvian jurisdiction were normal, that both parties had the same time frames, and that no procedural irregularities were committed. As to the petitioner’s claim that his documents were accepted by the court one day after it issued judgment, this has no basis, since it had to do with pleadings filed past deadline 14 and not documentary evidence. 20. With respect to the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection, the State maintains that the petitioner filed appeals that were inadmissible and before authorities that did not have jurisdiction, 15 the main reason these appeals were rejected. 9 Petitioner's initial submission, received at the IACHR on August 5, 1998. 10 State observations submitted on March 13, 2003. 11 State observations submitted on March 13, 2003. 12 The law applied to dismiss the petitioner was Article 5(h) of Law 24.514, which regulates the Right to Stability in the Workplace. That law 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...." 13 State observations submitted on March 13, 2003. 14 State observations submitted on March 13, 2003. 15 State observations submitted on March 13, 2003.