REPORT No. 116/18
CASE 12.975
MERITS
JULIO CASA NINA
PERU1
OCTOBER 5, 2018

I.

SUMMARY

1.
On February 6, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter,
“the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition submitted by
Julio Casa Nina (hereinafter, “the petitioner” or “the alleged victim”) alleging international responsibility
of the Republic of Peru (hereinafter, “the State” or “the Peruvian State”) to the detriment of Julio Casa
Nina.
2.
The Commission approved Report on Admissibility No. 79/14 on August 15, 2014.2 On
October 8, 2014, the Commission notified the parties of said report and placed itself at their disposal in
order to reach a friendly settlement, though circumstances did not materialize to begin said process. The
parties were given the time period provided for under the Rules to submit their additional observations
on the merits. All information received was duly forwarded to the opposing party.
3.
The petitioner contended that he was appointed Provisional Deputy Prosecutor in
1998, a period when the vast majority of public prosecutors in Peru served on a provisional basis. He
claimed that he held this position for 5 consecutive years and that he had not been subjected to any
administrative penalty in the performance of his duties. He asserted that on January 21, 2003, a ruling
was issued to remove him from the office of Provisional Deputy Prosecutor of the Second Provincial
Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Huamanga, Ayacucho, Peru, though no grounds were cited and no prior
proceedings were instituted.
4.
The State argued that Mr. Casa Nina’s removal from office was not a dismissal, but
rather a decision to terminate his appointment as public prosecutor, which is valid under the provisional
status system through which his was appointed. It further contended that, based on applicable law, said
system does not give rise to any rights other than those inherent to his position. It clarified that, while a
tenured judge has permanent status, a provisional judge is not permanent and only serves in office on a
temporary basis.
5.
Based on the findings of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concluded that
the State is responsible for violation of Articles 8.1, 8.2, 8.2 b), 8.2 c) (fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post
facto law), 23.1.c (right to participate in government) and 25.1 (judicial protection) of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in
connection with the obligations set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. The Commission
issued the respective recommendations.
II.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

A.

Petitioner

As provided for under Article 17.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Francisco José Eguiguren Praeli, a
Peruvian national, did not take part in the debate or in the decision of the instant case.
1

IACHR, Report No. 79/14. Case 12.975, Julio Casa Nina. August 15, 2014. In said report, the IACHR found admissible the claims
pertaining to articles 1.1, 2, 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention. It also found inadmissible the claims pertaining to articles 11
and 24 of the same instrument.
2

Select target paragraph3