B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 38. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements provided by affidavit,21 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case.22 39. The Court notes that the affidavit made by Julio Casa Nina was sent on September 11, 2020, eight days after the respective time limit.23 The representative justified the delay by the circumstances derived from the restrictions imposed by the Peruvian State in Supreme Decree 146-2020-PCM based on the “national and global state of emergency […] due to the uncontrollable propagation of the COIVD-19 pandemic.” Travel restrictions were imposed in the deponent’s place of residence and, added to his situation as a “vulnerable person with risk factors for contagion” in view of his age and the ailments from which he suffered, “the State […] ha[d] expressly prohibited [him] from going out.” In this regard, she forwarded a medical certificate on Mr. Casa Nina’s health. When submitting its final arguments, the State indicated that the time-barred submission of the statement meant that it was inadmissibility and that, if it should be admitted, it should be assessed “with the appropriate prudence.” 40. The Court notes that, although the representative initially advised that she had not received the questions that the State wished to ask the presumed victim, she subsequently justified the delay in the submission of Mr. Casa Nina’s statement by the measures adopted by the Peruvian State that restricted mobility owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court considers that the latter justification for the impossibility of presenting the statement within the allotted time frame is reasonable and supported by reasons of force majeure.24 Consequently, it admits the presumed victim’s affidavit, insofar as it is in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the aforementioned order of August 3, 2020, requiring it. VII FACTS 41. Based on the factual framework determined by the Commission and the evidence provided, the Court will establish the facts of this case as follows: (a) applicable legal framework; (b) appointments of Julio Casa Nina as Provisional Deputy Provincial Prosecutor; (c) Termination of the presumed victim’s appointment; (d) appeal mechanisms filed by the presumed victim; d.1) Appeal for review; d.2) Application for amparo; d.3) Remedy of appeal, and d.4) Appeal lodged before the Constitutional Court A. Applicable legal framework 42. Article 158 of the Peruvian Constitution25 stipulates: The Court received the statement of Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez (witness proposed by the State) within the established time frame. 21 22 The purposes of the statements were established in the order of the President of the Court of August 3, 2020. The order of the President of the Court of August 3, 2020, required that “[t]he requested statements must be presented to the Court by September 3, 2020, at the latest” (fourth operative paragraph). 23 See, Declaration of the Inter-American Court of April 9, 2020, “Covid-19 and Human Rights: The problems and challenges that must be addressed from the perspective of human rights and respect for international obligations.” Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/alerta/comunicado/cp-27-2020.html. 24 Peruvian Constitution, promulgated on December 29, 1993. Available at: http://spij.minjus.gob.pe/content/publicaciones_oficiales/img/Constitucion-Politica-2016.pdf. Articles 150 and 154 of the text in force at the time of the events established: 25 Article 150. The National Council of the Judiciary is responsible for the selection and appointment of judges and prosecutors, except when they are elected by the people. 12