REPORT Nº 54/08
PETITION 160-02
ADMISSIBILITY
EMPLOYEES DISMISSED FROM THE MINISTRY
OF THE ECONOMY AND FINANCE (MEF)
PERU
July 24, 2008
I.
SUMMARY
1.
On March 8, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Gloria Nila
Amabelia Moreno Cueva and another 14 former employees of the Ministry of the
Economy and Finance (MEF) (hereinafter “the petitioners” or “the alleged victims’)
against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “Peru,” the “Peruvian State” or the
“State”). The petition claimed that the 15 alleged victims had been dismissed through
a reduction-in-force alleged to be based on a law that was contrary to the
Convention. It also claimed that the alleged victims had been denied the opportunity
to exercise their right to defend themselves against the dismissal decision.
2.
The petitioners are alleging that the State of Peru violated the rights to
a fair trial and to juridical protection, upheld in Articles 8 and 25 of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American
Convention”), and in so doing violated the general obligations to respect and ensure
the Convention-protected rights, as established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, and
the obligation to adopt domestic legislative measures, established in Article 2 of that
instrument. As for the admissibility requirements, the petitioners claim to have
exhausted the remedies under domestic law, but point out that they were not afforded
judicial protection in a number of venues to which they turned. The petitioners further
point out that the State purportedly acknowledged its responsibility for the violations
alleged when it enacted Law No. 27803, which ordered a review of the collective
dismissals effected in the State-owned enterprises that were being opened up to
private capital. The petitioners assert that despite the State’s acknowledgement of
responsibility, the benefits ordered under the law do not meet the criteria established
by international case law to qualify as full reparations.
3.
The State, for its part, is asserting that the petitioners allegedly had
access to the mechanisms afforded under the laws in force in Peru. The State’s
contention is that the petitioners did not use the available remedies in a timely
manner, which was a lack of diligence on the part of each complainant, but not the
State. The State is therefore asking the Commission to declare the petition
inadmissible, pursuant to Article 47(b) of the American Convention and in keeping with
Article 31(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
4.
Without prejudging the merits of the petition, the IACHR concludes in
this report that because it meets the requirements set forth in Article 46 of the
American Convention, the petition is admissible with regard to Gloria Nila Amabelia
Moreno Cueva, Eliana Zavala Urbiola, Nidia Luisa Blanco Castro, Fortunato Crispín
Crispín, Hernán Suárez Aparcana, Fanny Rosa Pinto Loaces, Rafael Fritz Poma Guerra,
Eduardo Colán Vargas, Marissa Paulina Huamán Valle, Walter Neyra Huamanchumo,
Jaime Díaz Idrogo, Segundo León Barturén, Luís A. Del Castillo Florián, Julia Flores
Hilario, and Lucio Chávez Quiñones. The Inter-American Commission therefore decides
1