43. On May 26, 2008 the alleged victim filed an action for compensatory damages against the Judicial Branch and the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. The Commission does not have information about that action. 44. The Tenth Civil Court of Lima, by Resolution No. 44 of May 12, 2014, found the action 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. That judgment established that the arbitrary nature of the dismissal and cancellation of his title as judge in the case of Mr. Yangali Iparraguirre, as well as the violation of his constitutional rights, were duly shown, as reflected in the decision in the amparo proceeding brought by the petitioner. 5 45. In addition, the Court argued: “… As regards the causal nexus, conceived of as the link between the harmful event and the harm produced, that the instant case, as the plaintiff has indicated repeatedly, refers to the dismissal of the plaintiff as judge, for with that he was blocked from exercising his profession for more than 11 years. This was shown by Decree-Law 25492 of May 11, 1992, which ordered the dismissal of the plaintiff, among other judges, from the position of Judge that he performed up until that date. This provision was endorsed by the Council of Ministers and carried out by the Judicial Branch. This Decree Law, which was noted in the judgment at folio 21 ff., affirmed by the judgment at folios 29 to 32, declared Decree Laws 25492 and 25494 inapplicable to the petitioner, as the State had breached its duties to act in keeping with the law, thus impairing the plaintiff’s constitutional rights – as a judge he had the right to remain in the position up to the age of 75, and could only be removed from his position after a judicial proceeding. And that as the plaintiff’s dismissal occurred by Decree Law 25492, that act constitutes an illicit and arbitrary act. This conduct cannot be subsumed as a regular exercise of the law of the state as has been indicated by the Judicial Branch….” 6 46. It also determined, at its eighth preambular paragraph, that the amount of 586,124.56 nuevos soles corresponding to the lost earnings should be discounted by the sum of 110,329.45 nuevos soles, recognized as severance pay, which was recognized by Resolution No. 1101-2008-GPEJ-GG-PJ. 47. The petitioner filed a motion of appeal against that decision, which was granted with staying effect by the Tenth Civil Court on August 24, 2015. 7 48. The First Civil Chamber of Lima, by Resolution No. 24 of April 6, 2016, upheld the decision appealed, establishing that no discount should be made for any item from the sums indicated. In this respect, it indicated that: “In this regard, the judgment appealed should be affirmed nonetheless; it must be noted that what is stated in the eighth preambular paragraph of the judgment appealed is not consistent with what is defined as restitution for the harm caused and what the right to a pension entails, for the court below has improperly determined that the amount paid to the moving party on account of Administration Resolution No. 1101-2008-GPEJ-PJ for severance pay should be discounted in the enforcement of the judgment, without considering that said category is not part of the reparation sought to be made to the party for the harm caused to the appellant but the (illegible) severance pay, which derives from a right to the salary earned and not from the compensation that the moving party seeks to have respondents pay for the harm caused upon arbitrarily and illegally removing him from the Judicial branch, which is why the motion of appeal filed by the moving party should be considered out of order, therefore no discount to the sum established for lost earnings.” 8 49. On July 5, 2018, the Tenth Civil Court of Lima issued Resolution No. 58, by which it ordered the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the Judicial Branch to comply with the order of Resolution No. 24 of April 6, 2016, and the amounts defined there. 9 In this respect it indicated: Tenth Civil Court of Lima, Resolution No. 44 of May 12, 2014. Annex to the State’s brief of January 11, 2019. Tenth Civil Court of Lima, Resolution No. 44 of May 12, 2014. Annex to the State’s brief of January 11, 2019. 7 Tenth Civil Court of Lima, Resolution No. 55 of August 24, 2015. Annex to the State’s brief of January 11, 2019. 8 First Civil Chamber of Lima, Resolution No. 24 of April 6, 2016. Annex to the State’s brief of January 11, 2019. 9 Tenth Civil Court of Lima, Resolution No. 58 of July 5, 2018. Annex to the State’s brief of January 11, 2019. 5 6 8