I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On August 6, 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of “Julio Casa Nina” against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the Peruvian State,” “the State” or “Peru”). According to the Commission, the case relates to a series of violations that allegedly occurred during proceedings that culminated in the removal of Julio Casa Nina from the posit of Provisional Deputy Prosecutor of the Second Criminal Prosecution Office of the province of Huamanga, Ayacucho, Peru. The Commission considered that the appointment of the presumed victim had been made with no specific time frame or conditions and was limited to a general mention of the needs for the service, and this was incompatible with the enhanced guarantee of job stability that should protect prosecutors to safeguard their independence. It also alleged that the procedure based on which Mr. Casa Nina was removed from his post did not respect the right of defense, the principle of legality, the principle of presumption of innocence, and the right to duly reasoned decisions, which also violated the right to accede to and remain in a post under general conditions of equality. Lastly, it argued a violation of the right to judicial protection because the administrative and legal remedies and actions were ineffective to contest the decision that removed the presumed victim from his post. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition. On February 6, 2007, Julio Casa Nina (hereinafter also “the presumed victim”) lodged the initial petition. b) Admissibility Report. On August 15, 2014, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 79/14, in which it concluded that the petition was admissible. c) Merits Report. On October 5, 2018, the Commission adopted Merits Report No. 116/18 (hereinafter “the Merits Report” or “Report No. 116/18”), in which it reached a series of conclusions1 and made various recommendations to the State. 3. Notification to the State. The Merits Report was notified to the State on November 6, 2018, granting it two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. On February 6, 2019, the Commission granted the State a two-month extension to comply with the recommendations of the Merits Report and, on May 6, 2019, it granted a second extension. The Commission denied the State’s request for a third extension considering that it had “not expressed a clear intention to comply with the recommendations.” 4. Submission to the Court. On August 6, 2019, the Commission submitted this case to the Court, indicating “the need to obtain justice for the [presumed[ victim.”2 The Curt notes, with concern, that 12 years and 6 months passed between the lodging of the initial petition before the Commission and the submission of the case to the Court. 5. The Commission’s requests. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to conclude and declare the international responsibility of Peru for the violations contained in The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the right to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality, the right to remain in public office under general conditions of equality and the right to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 9, 23(1)(c) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Julio Casa Nina. 1 The Commission appointed Commissioner Joel Hernández and then Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão, as its delegates before the Court, and Christian González Chacón, Executive Secretariat lawyer, as its legal adviser. 2 4