I. INTRODUCTION
REPORT No. 302/20
CASE 13.263
REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS
GINO ERNESTO YANGALI IPARRAGUIRRE
October 29, 2020
1. On January 30, 2003 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American
Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition filed by Mr. Gino Ernesto Yangali
Iparraguirre (hereinafter “the petitioner” or “the alleged victim”) alleging the international responsibility of the
Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the Peruvian State,” “the State,” or “Peru”) 1 for the alleged violation of rights
enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American
Convention”) as a result of being removed from his position as judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima
and the subsequent impossibility of pursuing constitutional remedies to challenge that decision.
2. On October 2, 2017, the Commission communicated to the parties that in keeping with the instruments that
govern its mandate it deferred addressing the admissibility of the instant petition to the deliberations and
decision on the merits. The Commission made itself available to the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, yet
the conditions for doing so never materialized. The parties had the time periods as per the Rules of Procedure
for submitting their observations on the case. All the information received by one party was as duly transmitted
to the other.
II. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
A. The petitioner
3. The petitioner indicates that as of November 1, 1979 the alleged victim worked in various positions in the
Judicial Branch, and that he was appointed to the post of Principal Judge (Juez Titular) of the Second Court for
Labor Matters and Labor Communities of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima by Supreme Resolution No. 17888-JUS of May 27, 1988. He states that in the course of his judicial activities he was not the subject of any
disciplinary measure or complaint, nor was he subjected to any proceeding whatsoever. Moreover, he says that
he held leadership positions, such as National Secretary of the National Association of Judges of Peru
(Asociación Nacional de Magistrados del Perú) and Secretary of the District Association of Judges of Lima, which
are provided for in the Organic Law on the Judicial Branch.
4. He indicates that in the context of the measures adopted by the administration of Alberto Fujimori after it
dissolved the Congress in April 1992 the Executive issued a series of decrees regarding the operation of the
Judicial Branch with the aim of removing judges and impairing judicial independence in the country.
Accordingly, he specifies that on May 13, 1992, Decree-Law No. 25492 was adopted, which ordered the
separation from their posts of the alleged victim and 16 other judges in labor courts.
5. He argues that he has suffered violations of his rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, as
that provision lacked any foundation or justification, and that his removal from the judicial position did not
result from an administrative proceeding that respected legal guarantees. He argues that the minimum
provisions of due process were not abided by, such as prior and detailed communication of charges or
accusations that may have motivated his removal, and that he did not have the right to defense.
6. He alleged that the State kept him from accessing judicial remedies to enable him to challenge the decree
ordering his removal from his judicial position. He explains that on May 15, 1992, Decree-Law No. 25496 was
In keeping with Article 17(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Julissa Mantilla Falcón, of Peruvian nationality, did
not participate in the deliberations or decision in the instant case.
1
1