parties, thus tarnishing their honor and good reputation. Moreover, he indicates that the State has not held a ceremony for redress for the harm caused by the application of the aforementioned provisions. 13. In addition, he argues that his right to humane treatment has been violated because his removal had a detrimental impact on his physical and mental integrity due to the stress and depression that he experienced. He also alleges violation of the right to protection of the family, since due to his removal his wife had to move to the city of Puno for work. He further notes that the State has not taken measures to facilitate the unity of his core family group. B. The State 14. The State argues that the Commission is not competent to rule on violations of the rights to health and wellbeing, to work and fair remuneration, or to social security, all provided for in the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In addition, it indicates that as Peru is a state party to the American Convention, it is this instrument, and not the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, that is the principal source of international obligations. 15. Initially the State affirmed that there was a failure to exhaust domestic remedies, since the damages action has not yet been decided. Nonetheless, in its last briefs it emphasized that said judicial proceeding had concluded favorably for the petitioner. Accordingly, it indicates that on May 12, 2014, the Tenth Civil Court of Lima found that the damages action filed by the alleged victim had a solid basis and ordered the payment of compensation. It notes that in response to the petitioner’s inconformity, related to the payment of legal interest, he filed an appeal, which was the subject of a ruling by the First Civil Chamber of Lima on April 6, 2016. It specifically notes that said judgment upheld the decision of May 12, 2014, and recognized the payment of legal interest to Mr. Yangali Iparraguirre. 16. The State indicates that after the intervention of the courts, in 2004 the petitioner was reinstated and is currently active in the judicial career service, serving as one of the judges on the Third Criminal Chamber for Trials with Defendants in the Superior Court of Justice of Lima. It also asserts that he enjoys the same opportunities in the judiciary, having acceded to the position of superior judge (juez superior). 17. The State argues that the petitioner has enjoyed all the guarantees of due process and that as a result of the judicial proceedings instituted he had access to the corresponding measures of reparation. It notes that measures were adopted domestically to cure the violations alleged by the petitioner motu proprio, and that therefore, in application of the principle of subsidiarity, the case has been resolved in the domestic jurisdiction. The State further emphasizes that the reparations granted in the context of the domestic proceedings meet the international standards developed by the inter-American system. 18. It notes that in the context of the action for damages brought by the alleged victim, on May 12, 2004 the Tenth Civil Court of Lima found that it was well-founded and ordered the payment of 20,000 nuevos soles for consequential damages, 50,000 nuevos soles for moral damages, and 586,124.56 nuevos soles for lost earnings. It mentions that the petitioner appealed that decision for he considered that legal interest had not been taken into account. It states that on April 6, 2016, the First Civil Chamber of Lima ratified the decision of first instance, also recognizing the recognizing the payment of legal interest, and it established that no discount of any sort would apply. It indicates that in this connection on July 5, 2018, the Tenth Civil Court of Lima required the respondents, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the Judicial Branch, to pay the plaintiff the total sum of 656,124.56 nuevos soles. It emphasizes that the Office of Legal Defense reported that “the payment would be made based on criteria for prioritization for attending to the payment of court judgments.” 19. In addition, it indicates that the petitioner filed a complaint in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, seeking the payment of the operating expenses set for principal superior judges during the period in which he held the position of provisional superior judge, as of 2001, plus legal interest. It notes that on October 31, 2012, the 19th Specialized Labor Court of Lima found that the action was well-grounded and ordered the Judicial Branch to make the required payment. It notes that said judgment was affirmed by the Second Labor Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on July 30, 2014. It notes that in light of that proceeding the Office of 3