REPORT No. 106/10 PETITION 147-98 ADMISSIBILITY OSCAR MUELLE FLORES PERU July 16, 2010 I. SUMMARY 1. On April 8, 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Commission,” Inter-American Commission,” or “IACHR”) received a petition lodged on his own behalf by Oscar Muelle Flores (hereinafter “the petitioner” or “the alleged victim”), in which he alleged that the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “the State of Peru”) is responsible for noncompliance with two amparo judgments that acknowledged certain of his rights, including, he claimed, his inclusion under the pension and compensation system stipulated in Decree-Law 20530, and the renewable payment of his retirement pension. The petitioner alleged that the State of Peru has not complied with its obligation to execute the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court, and that this is a violation of the rights established in Articles 24 and 25 of the American Convention. 2. The State, for its part, described the judicial proceedings carried out in the two amparo complaints filed by the petitioner and affirmed that the two petitions were declared to have merit and are currently in the process of execution. 3. After examining the position of the parties in the light of admissibility requirements set out in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, the Commission concluded that it is competent to examine the petition and that the facts narrated in it could characterize a violation of the rights protected by Articles 8.1, 21 and 25.2(c) of the American Convention. Consequently, it decided to notify the parties of this admissibility report and to publish it in its Annual Report. II. PROCEDURES BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4. The Commission received the petition on April 8, 1998, and registered it as number P147-98. On April 28, 2004, the IACHR requested the petitioner to provide updated information, which was sent on June 14, 2004. 5. On April 13, 2009, the IACHR transmitted the pertinent parts of the original petition and additional communications to the State, and, in accordance with its Rules of Procedure, it granted the State two months to present its response. On March 1, 2010, the State presented its response, which was forwarded to the petitioner on April 7, 2010. 6. In a communication dated May 29, 2010, received by the Executive Secretariat on July 8, 2010, the petitioner presented additional information, which the Commission transmitted to the State on July 13, 2010. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioner 7. The petitioner alleged that on September 30, 1990, he retired as Assistant General Manager of the “Tintaya” Special Mining Company S.A., a state-owned enterprise at that time. According to his account, he was included in the pension system under Decree-Law 20530, by Management Resolution N°AD-0884/90-R of May 15, 1990, based on Board of Directors Decisions N°155/88 of December 22, 1988 and 029/90 of February 8, 1990. These agreements authorized the government to incorporate employees into said pension system and established the corresponding regulations for that purpose.