adjudicated in the worker���s favor, he or she may decide to be reinstated or to terminate the contract, which would lead to the payment of obligations pertaining to special compensation (Art. 12). d. Legal actions pursued Lawsuit for “classification of dismissal” 56. In a July 26, 1989 filing,12 Alfredo Lagos del Campo brought suit against CEPER-PIRELLI, seeking to have his dismissal classified as “wrongful and improper.” The alleged victim denied having insulted the company or having used the words “blackmail” and “coercion.” He emphasized that, in any case, the statements that led to his dismissal were made in his capacity as President of the Electoral Committee of the company’s Industrial Community, and referred to internal problems within the community, specifically to irregularities that arose in the election of the Council members. In that respect, he argued that the penalty imposed against him, in addition to being improper, was “a serious violation of his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of opinion, expression, and dissemination of opinion, thus constituting a serious interference in labor union and employee-owner activities.” On this last point, Mr. Lagos del Campo stated that “Any worker, and in particular those who hold positions as employee-owners or union officers, as in [his] case, have not only the right but also the need to be informed and speak out about workplace situations and activities.” He added that his dismissal was the culmination of “a chain of acts” of harassment against him, because he had repeatedly held positions representing the union and employee-owners. 57. The matter was filed under Case No. 4737-89 before the Fifteenth Labor Court of Lima. In Judgment 25-91 of March 5, 1991, the judge ruled that the dismissal was “unlawful and wrongful.”13 The Court held that in order for an employer to proceed with a dismissal, the law stipulates that the serious infraction attributed to an employee must be duly proven. It found that the dismissal in this case was based on an article published in a magazine, without it being reliably confirmed by the representatives of the respondent company that the “defamatory words” could in fact be attributed to the worker. In addition, the Court held that the statements contained in the article did not refer to individual persons, and therefore no members of the company had been directly wronged. 58. The company filed an appeal on June 25, 1991 before the Second Labor Court of Lima, under case file No. 839-91.14 On August 1, Alfredo Lagos del Campo filed a pleading contesting the appeal.15 In a judgment handed down on August 8, 1991, the Court reversed the lower court’s decision, classifying the dismissal as “lawful and warranted.”16 The Court found that the statements made by the alleged victim constituted “serious insubordination or a serious verbal infraction against the employer,” and that “the Constitution of Peru guarantees freedom of expression, but not to insult the personal honor and dignity of the employer company’s senior staff.”17 59. Mr. Lagos del Campo filed a motion for review and reconsideration on August 26, 1991, which was denied on August 27, 1991.18 On September 2, 1991, he filed a motion to vacate.19 In that motion, 12 Annex 7. Lawsuit filed by Mr. Alfredo Lagos del Campo for wrongful dismissal before the Labor Court of Lima. July 26, 1989. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 13 Annex 8. Fifteenth Judge of the Labor Court of Lima. Judgment 25-91 of March 5, 1991. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 14 Annex 10. Appellate brief submitted by Mr. Alfredo Lagos del Campo to the Second Labor Court of Lima. June 25, 1991. Case File No. 839-91. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 15 Annex 11. Responsive pleading to the motion for appeal submitted by Alfredo Lagos del Campo to the Second Labor Court of Lima. August 1, 1991, Case File No. 839-91. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 16 Annex 12. Second Labor Court of Lima. Judgment 08-0891 of August 8, 1991. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 17 Annex 12. Second Labor Court of Lima. Judgment 08-0891 of August 8, 1991. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 18 Annex 13. Motion for review and reconsideration filed by Mr. Alfredo Lagos del Campo with the Second Labor Court of Lima. Case File No. 839-91. August 26, 1991, and Order issued by the Second Labor Court of Lima. Case File No. 839-91. August 21, 1991. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 11