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

Select target paragraph3