that the appellant became aware of his new situation with respect to the police months before the date on which he claimed notice was served. That claim was based on the Law of General Standards of Administrative Procedures, a report by the General Legal Advice Office of the Interior Ministry, an opinion from the Legal Service of the General Directorate of the National Police, a statement by the Personnel Director of the National Police of Peru, and the opinion of the Director General of the National Police.4 37. The information presented by the petitioner also indicates that on April 3, 1997, he lodged an administrative appeal for annulment with the Specialized Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic, arguing that he was notified of the resolution whereby he was retired from service on March 11, 1996, and at that time he was apprised of its contents. In that filing the petitioner stated that, “it would be illogical for me to present, or to have presented, a challenge to an administrative decision that was not in my power and whose contents and arguments I therefore did not know, since that only took place on March 11, 1996, and not before, and in response to the request I had made.” 5 That appeal was also dismissed as inadmissible, on the grounds that the petitioner’s reconsideration remedy had in fact been presented after the filing deadline.6 38. He adds that his forced retirement took place after 20 years’ service, when he had a brilliant record that promised a bright future in the National Police, and that it caused grave and irreparable harm to his personal, family, and professional life since, by now, he would have the rank of General. 39. Regarding the State’s argument that if his legal situation had been taken into account then he would have been retired on disciplinary grounds, he notes that the regulations cited by the State indicate the way in which such steps are to be taken: that is, following a ruling by the Investigations Board and after summoning him to appear and be heard. He states that an analysis of the evidence would also be required, and that no such analysis was performed. In any event, he claims, the State’s argument is irrelevant since he was retired in 1994 and the conviction was handed down in 1997. 40. Regarding the Peruvian State’s claim that his forced retirement followed a procedure established by the Organic National Police Law, the petitioner maintains that those regulations cannot be placed above the Constitution. He holds that forced retirement, whether on renewal grounds or for any other reason, must be based on administrative proceedings in which the right of defense is guaranteed. 41. In a more recent communication, the petitioner reported that on April 4, 2007, at a public ceremony held at the Officers Academy, the Minister of the Interior, representing the Peruvian State, apologized to him and vindicated him by recognizing that his forced retirement had been wrong. He explains that his ceremony took place as a result of Law 28805. In any event, he notes, the order for his reinstatement did not have the desired effect, because he had passed the age limit of 56 years for holding the rank of Commander in the PNP. 42. He also reports that on December 13, 2000, he made a criminal accusation for the crime of perverting the course of justice against the three judges who had convicted him. That complaint, he says, was dismissed. He claims that one of the judges named in his accusation sent him a threatening note, asking for a payment of US$100,000 for having filed the complaint against him. B. State 4 Annex to the initial petition, received on May 16, 2000. Supreme Resolution No. 003-97-IN/PNP. 5 Annex to the initial petition, received on May 16, 2000. Document filing for an administrative annulment remedy, lodged with the Specialized Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic. 6 Annex to petitioner’s submission, received on August 21, 2003. Judgment of January 26, 2000, by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic. 5