I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On January 9, 2020, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Commission”) submitted the case of Moya Solís versus the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State”, “Peru” or “the Peruvian State”) to the Inter-American Court. According to the Commission, the case relates to alleged violations of Articles 8(1), 8(2) b), 8(2) c), 9, 23(1) c) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligations established in the Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mrs. Moya Solís. The alleged violations occurred within the framework of the administrative process for ratification, which ended with the removal of Mrs. Moya Solís from the position of Judicial Clerk of the Tenth Court with Privative Jurisdiction for Labor and Labor Communities. The Commission considered that the process against Mrs. Moya Solís disregarded her right to know in advance, and in detail, the accusation made and to have adequate time and means to form her defense. It also ignored Mrs. Moya Solís’s right to expect a duly reasoned decision and the principle of legality, as there were no clearly defined grounds outlining the conduct that would be evaluated. In addition, the Commission considered that the right to judicial protection and a reasonable time frame were ignored, because the remedies filed by the presumed victim were rejected without a substantive analysis of the violations of due process, and because the processing of the action for amparo took more than 10 years. Finally, the Commission found that in this case the political rights of the presumed victim were violated because she was removed from her position in an arbitrary process, which affected her right to remain in her position on a basis of equality. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure followed before the Commission was as follows: a. Petition. - On March 21, 2000, Mrs. Moya Solís filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission. b. Admissibility Report. On August 12, 2016, the Inter-American Commission found the case admissible in Report No. 37/16. The Admissibility Report was notified to the parties on September 1, 2016. c. Merits Report. - On May 4, 2019, the Commission approved the Merits Report No. 63/19, in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter “Merits Report” or “Report No. 63/19”). d. Notification to the State. The Merits Report was notified to the State in a communication dated July 9, 2019, and it was given a period of 2 months to report on compliance with the recommendations. The State requested an extension, which was granted by the Commission. In its second report on compliance, the State asked the Commission to publish the Merits Report No. 63/19 and did not present substantive information showing significant progress in compliance with the recommendations. The presumed victim asked the Commission for the case to be referred to the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. 3. Submission to the Court. On January 9, 2020, the Commission submitted to the InterAmerican Court all the facts and alleged human rights violations described in Report No. 63/19, due to “the need to obtain justice”.1 This Court notes with concern that twenty years have elapsed 1 The Commission appointed Commissioner Joel Hernández and the then Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão as its delegates. It also delegated the Deputy Executive Secretary, Marisol Blanchard and the Secretariat's lawyers Jorge Meza Flores and Christian González Chacón as legal advisers. 3