1979.21 She served as Judicial Clerk of the Tenth Court with Privative Jurisdiction for Labor and Labor Communities of Lima. 44. The process of ratification of Mrs. Moya Solís22 began in 1982 and ended with her nonratification. In this regard, the Minutes of the Plenary Chamber of September 10, 1982, in which the ratification of Mrs. Moya Solís was discussed, states: That in the Register of Agreements of Plenary Chamber No. 2 of the Labor Law and Labor Communities Court, are found[...] the Minutes of Plenary Chamber dated September 10, nineteen hundred and eighty-two (sic), the express wording of which (relevant part) is as follows: […] The Labor and Labor Communities Court met in the […] Plenary Chamber, with Dr. Pedro Pablo Gutiérrez Ferreyra as President, its members being Luis Felipe Barrientos, Sara Collazos de Manchego, Juan Parra Solís, Gonzalo lturry Iturry, Victoria [...] de Fuertes, Felipe [...], Eduardo Gutiérrez Ballón, Jaime Beltrán Quirosa and Edmundo Villecorte Ramirez : on this occasion the last of the members mentioned acted as secretary, as the newest member. The meeting was opened by the President stating that […] the Plenary Chamber was to comply with Law No. 23369, on the ratification of the […] clerks of the Labor and Labor Communities Court of the entire public […], (RELEVANT PART) Mrs. Norka Moya Solís de Rocha, has a favorable report in part; The Chamber was informed that the aforementioned clerk has financial debts amounting to approximately […], and proof of them would be the […] raised by the Ratifications Commission by […] a worker of the Jurisdiction. In addition, it was reported that Mrs. Moya Solís had her own business that absorved [sic] her time. The voting then proceeded: obtaining 5 white ballots to 5 black (NOT RATIFIED). This is a true copy of the original minutes to which I refer as necessary.23 45. For its part, Order No. 0015-82-TT, of September 13, 1982, indicates that deficiencies were found in the processing of files by Mrs. Moya Solís; that the report issued by the Judge in charge of the Tenth Court was not favorable; that Mrs. Moya Solís had been previously sanctioned; and that the charges presented were not disproved.24 C. Remedies filed by Mrs. Moya Solís C.1 Appeal for Review 46. On September 17, 1982, Mrs. Moya Solís filed an appeal for review with the Supreme Court of Justice, for not being ratified in her position. She argued that her job performance was good, that she did not have the opportunity to present evidence or support her defense within the ratification process and was never given the minutes of the meeting in which her performance was evaluated, despite having made a request and despite said obligation being regulated in Supreme Decree 003-82-JUS25. In her appeal, Mrs. Moya Solís indicated that to date she had not Mrs. Moya Solís served between 1973 and 1979 as an assistant to the Third Private Labor Court of Lima. From 1979, she went on to work as Judicial Clerk. Cf. Ministerial Resolution No. 419 of July 2, 1973, in which Mrs. Moya Solís is appointed for a trial period of 6 months as assistant to the Third Private Labor Court (evidence file, folio 2); Ministerial Resolution No. 008-74-TR of January 9, 1974, in which Moya Solís is ratified as auxiliary of the Third Private Labor Court of Lima (evidence file, folio 4); and Directorial Resolution No. 191-79-SA of December 21, 1979, in which the position of Judicial Clerk of the Privative Jurisdiction of Labor and Labor Communities was granted to Mrs. Moya Solís (evidence file, folio 5). 22 Cf. The file contains a copy of the minutes of an interview with Mrs. Moya Solís on August 12, 1982 and a copy of the minutes of the visit of August 26, 1982 of the Ratifications Commission to the Tenth Labor Privy Court in order to review the files and Mrs. Norka Moya Solís’s office (evidence file, folios 727 and 729). 23 Cf. Certificate of the Full Chamber Agreement regarding the non-ratification of Mrs. Moya Solís, issued on March 14, 1988 (evidence file, folio 13). 24 Cf. Resolution N° 0015-82-TT of September 13, 1982 (evidence file, folio 756). 25 The appeal filed by Mrs. Moya Solís states: “4. Since subsection c) of Article 2 of Supreme Decree 003-82JUS, grants the Clerk examined the possibility as an immanent issue of their right, to take evidence and support their defense, if their behavior is challenged. I verbally requested the delivery of a copy of the minutes, to have an 21 13