(…)” and decided “To terminate the appointment of Dr. Julio Casa Nina as Provisional Provincial Deputy Prosecutor of the Second Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Huamanga, Judicial District of Ayacucho (…) without prejudice to the legal actions that could be pertinent to the complaint and charge that are pending.”6 C. Regarding the mechanisms of challenge pursued 1. Motion for reconsideration (Recurso de reconsideración) 31. As the record in the case file shows, the alleged victim filed a motion for reconsideration with the Attorney General of the Nation to “vacate the decision adopted and order the reinstatement of the appellant in the position of provincial deputy prosecutor that he had been discharging.” In the motion, he argued that “the charges that have been brought against me have been dispelled and because there is a pronouncement of the court, there are no stated grounds to adopt removal from office and this evidence, on the contrary, proves my innocence, and your Authority should reconsider the administrative act.” 7 The Commission takes note that, according to information from the petitioner, which was not refuted by the State, he was subsequently acquitted of said complaints. 32. On February 14, 2003, the Attorney General of the Nation denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the alleged victim. Among her considerations, she found: That, the appointment of Prosecutors on provisional status is of a temporary nature and that the arguments invoked by the appellant in his written motion for reconsideration do not disprove in any way, the grounds of Resolution of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation No. 087-2003-MP-FN, dated January 21, 2003, pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 of Law 27362. That, as of the date when the aforementioned Resolution was issued the appellant has two complaints before the Decentralized District Commission of Internal Control.8 33. The Commission takes note that Article 5 of Law 27362 established that “provisional judges may only discharge jurisdictional duties while the interim status lasts. They are precluded from assuming any administrative function or representation.”9 2. Amparo suit 34. Subsequently, the alleged victim brought an amparo suit with the First Specialized Court for Civil Matters of Huamanga, Ayacucho, against the Office of the Attorney General, claiming a violation of the right to work, to due process and to a defense. The amparo filing was cured on December 16, 2004 after being denied on the grounds that it did not specify “the date when his right was affected” and because it did not provide proof of “prior exhaustion of remedies.”10 Among his contentions, the alleged victim wrote that: (…) my appointment as Provisional Deputy Prosecutor cannot simply be terminated by unilateral decision and especially when there is no justified reason to do so. Annex 2. Copy of Resolution No. 087-2003-MP-FN of January 21, 2003, issued by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation. Annex to initial petition of February 6, 2007 7 Annex 3. Copy of Motion for Reconsideration of February 13, 2003, filed by Julio Casa Nina with Nelly Navarro, Attorney General of the Nation. Annex to State’s response to the initial petition of July 22, 2010. 8 Annex 4. Copy of Resolution No. 285-2003-MP-FN of February 14, 2003, issued by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation. Annex to State’s response to initial petition of July 22, 2010. 9 See Law No 27362, Ley que Deja sin efecto la homologación de los magistrados titulares y provisionales del Poder Judicial y del Ministerio Público. [‘Law repealing the equal status of tenured and provisional magistrates of the Judiciary and of the Office of the Public Prosecutor’]. 10 Annex 5. Copy of Resolution No. 01 of December 02, 2004, issued by the First Specialized Court for Civil Matters of Huamanga, Ayacucho. Annex to State’s response to initial petition of July 22, 2011. 6 5