(…) it is false that there exist any administrative complaints charging misconduct in performance of duties. Furthermore, because I was dismissed and was not explained the reasons for such decisions I am being belittled in my conduct as a human person…it violates the principle of dignity of the person (…) (…) to be removed from office, required an administrative proceeding, providing for all guarantees, without infringing at a minimum the right to a defense.11 35. On April 19, 2005, the Chambers of the First Specialized Court for Civil Matters of Huamanga denied the amparo claim. Among its considerations, it found: That, because the plaintiff held Provisional, not Tenured, status in the position of Provincial Deputy Prosecutor; the decision adopted by the Attorney General of the Nation does not in any way constitute a disciplinary measure of dismissal from office as provided in Article 52 of the Organic Law of the Office of Public Prosecution, Legislative Decree 052, and therefore the claim filed must be dismissed inasmuch as no constitutional violation has been proven; all the more so because in the same resolution that the plaintiff seeks to overturn, it is specified that the measure adopted is without prejudice to the legal actions that could be pertinent because of the complaint and charge that are pending; which means that the complaint and charge do not constitute the grounds of the resolution as is argued in the suit.12 3. Appeal and petition for constitutional relief for denial of rights (Recurso de apelación y de agravio constitucional) 36. Subsequently, the alleged victim filed an appeal with the Civil Chamber of Ayacucho. On July 11, 2005, the Specialized Chamber for Civil Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Ayacucho upheld the decision of the First Specialized Court finding that: (…) the moving party seeks to allege rights to which tenured prosecutors are entitled, [who are] appointed in accordance with the provisions of article one hundred and fiftyfour of our Magna Carta, inasmuch as the office that he had been discharging (…) as an appointment of trust, was Provisional Provincial Deputy Prosecutor of the Second Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Huamanga, that is to say, a temporary office, that does not give rise to rights other than those inherent to his office (…).13 37. The same day, the alleged victim filed a petition for constitutional relief for denial of rights with the Constitutional Court against the appellate ruling. On November 14, 2005, the Constitutional Court handed down a judgment denying the petition because it found that: (…) substitution or provisional appointment, as such, constitutes a situation that does not give rise to rights other than those inherent to the office, which is held “provisionally” by a person who has no permanent title [tenure]. This being the case, protection of rights cannot be sought, before a constitutional court, when the person is not entitled to such rights because he has not been appointed pursuant to the provisions of articles 150 and 154 of the Constitution, but [instead] discharges, on an interim basis, a function of a transitory nature.14 Annex 6. Copy of amparo filing with the Judge of the Civil Court of Huamanga, Ayacucho, brought by Julio Casa Nina. Annex to State’s response to initial petition of July 22, 2011. 12 Annex 7. Copy of Resolution No. 07 of April 19, 2005, issued by the First Specialized Court for Civil Matters of Huamanga, Ayacucho. Annex to initial petition of February 6, 2007. 13 Annex 8. Copy of Resolution No. 13 of July 11, 2005, issued by the Specialized Chamber for Civil Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Ayacucho. Annex to initial petition of February 6, 2007. 14 Annex 9. Copy of the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of November 14, 2005, handed down by the Constitutional Court. Annex to initial petition of February 6, 2007. 11 6