35. The Commission takes note that subsequent to that decision, the alleged victim sent several submissions to the 16th Civil Court in Lima expressing that it should request the record of ratifications from the Labor Tribunal and asking that a decision be issued in her case.21 According to available information, in November 1986, September 1987, and January 1990, the 16th Civil Court of Lima requested the record of ratifications of the alleged victim from various courts.22 The Commission does not have the response to those requests. 36. In June 1995, the 33rd Civil Court of Lima made the same request.23 On March 4, 1996, the Administrative Delegate of the Chambers and Courts answered the request made by the 33rd Civil Court of Lima, stating: Having performed the search in the archives that are in this Administrative office, which has the archives of the former Secretary General of the Labor and Labor Communities Tribunal, no case file or record whatsoever is found regarding the above-noted … and certification issued by the Secretary General dated September 10, 1992, which is attached in photocopies.24 37. On December 30, 1996 the 16th Civil Court of Lima issued a new ruling in response to the amparo action filed in 1983 by the alleged victim. In this ruling the Court established as follows: First: That the amparo action, as it is a mechanism for effective protection of a private individual, when there is an evident and certain threat or violation of a constitutional right; in which case, its purpose is to return to the status quo ex ante, as indicated in the first and second articles of Law 23506; Second: That, as appears from the prayers for relief, the moving party pursues the amparo remedy calling into question the Supreme Resolution of October 12, 1983, by which her motion for review filed against her non-ratification as Clerk of Court assigned to the Tenth Labor and Labor Communities Court of Lima was declared to be without foundation; by which, she argues, her fundamental rights, indicated in her complaint brief, have been violated; Third: That, as appears from the foregoing, as well as from the facts set forth in the complaint, the moving party questions the Resolution indicated, but not the decision of the Session of the Labor Tribunal en banc of September 10, 1982, by which it was decided not to ratify her in the position of clerk of court, as noted; in that case the litis should focus on the first resolution indicated, and one should verify whether its issuance violated any constitutional right of the moving party; Fourth: That, as can be noted from the administrative record, the moving party in the processing of the motion for review filed before the Supreme Court has fully exercised her right to defense, so much so that she has even produced several briefs making use of that right, as can be seen at folios 14, 17, 19, 25, 31, 32, and others that appear in that record, which were presented before the issuance of the resolution that is challenged by her in this proceeding; Fifth: That from what was indicated in the foregoing considerations, one concludes that with the issuance by the Supreme Court of the Resolution of October 12, 1983, no constitutional right whatsoever of the moving party has been impinged upon or violated, as it has been issued in the performance of duties; accordingly, the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 2 of Law 23506 do not apply to the instant case; thus rendering the action filed inadmissible; in view of the foregoing; Annex 15. Communications sent by Ms. Moya Solís to the 16th Civil Court in Lima updating information in the case and asking that it rule again on the amparo action in keeping with what was ordered by the Supreme Court of Justice. These were sent on the following dates: February 27, 1986, March 13, 1987, April 1, 1987, February 10, 1988, August 16, 1889, February 3, 1995, August 8, 1995, September 25, 1995, February 7, 1996, and August 2, 1996. Annex 25 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 22 Annex 16. Communication of November 1986 from the 16th Civil Court of Lima to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, asking for the record of ratifications referring to the petitioner’s case. Annex 25.17 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000; Annex 17. Communication of March 1987 from the 16th Civil Court of Lima to the President of the Labor and Labor Communities Tribunal, requesting the record of ratifications referring to the petitioner’s case. Annex 25.16 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000; Annex 18. Communication of September 1987 from the 16th Civil Court in Lima to the President of the Labor and Labor Communities Tribunal requesting the record of ratifications referring to petitioner’s case. Annex 25.15 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 23 Annex 19. Communication of June 1995 from the 33rd Civil Court of Lima, requesting of the Superior Court of Lima the Record of Ratifications in the ratification process, September 10, 1982. Annex 25.12 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 24 Annex 20. Response of March 4, 1996 from the Administrative Delegate of the Chambers and Courts to the President of the Superior Court of Justice in response to the request for the record of ratifications by the 33rd Civil Court of Lima, noting that the record requested is not to be found. Annex 25.18 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 21