representatives, and with the objective of favoring candidates backed by the company’s bosses. The petitioners additionally stated that, in light of those irregularities, a group of employee-owners challenged the election results. According to the petitioners, the Participation Office of the Ministry of Industry issued a decision on June 9, 1989, declaring that the challenge was justified. On June 22, 1989, after the elections were declared null and void, the Electoral Committee, presided over by Alfredo Lagos del Campo, reportedly “gave notice of a meeting scheduled for June 27, 1989, for purposes of coordinating the new election pursuant to the decision of the Participation Office of the Ministry of Industry.” 14. The petitioners explained that, in this context, Mr. Lagos del Campo made statements to the magazine “La Razón,” in which he informed “the public and the competent authorities of irregularities in the election of members to the Industrial Community Board and of employee representatives to the company’s Board of Directors.” Based on his statements, Mr. Lagos del Campo was fired from his job in June, 1989 for ¨serious verbal misconduct against the employer.¨ 15. The petitioners stated that prior to his dismissal Mr. Lagos del Campo “began a long legal battle before the domestic courts.” They asserted that he filed a lawsuit for classification of dismissal before the Labor Judge, which at the first instance found that the dismissal was unwarranted. This decision was reversed on appeal by the court of second instance. According to the petition, Mr. Lagos del Campo filed a petition for a constitutional remedy [acción de amparo] against the appeal judgment of the labor court, which was also dismissed. They maintained that the alleged victim has filed numerous pleadings and petitions before various authorities, expressing his dissatisfaction with these decisions. They stated that Mr. Lagos del Campo’s demand for his rights “was a reason for [his] stigmatization.” 16. The petitioners stated that during the domestic proceedings Alfredo Lagos del Campo “has denied using some of the expressions that appeared in the text of the interview, which were attributed to the article’s author, and maintains that position to this day.” The alleged victim has acknowledged “that he made statements publicly denouncing the situation and the irregularities that arose during the Industrial Community election.” They stated that the controversy before the respective courts was whether, in the interview, Alfredo Lagos del Campo used the expressions that the company considered offensive or whether, on the contrary, the author of the article was responsible for them. They explained that, “The case ended with the court’s decision that it had been proven that Alfredo Lagos del Campo used those expressions.” 17. The petitioners asserted that, “Without prejudice to what has been deemed proven in the domestic courts, the published statements for which the [alleged] victim was fired are protected by Article 13 of the American Convention; that is, his dismissal was the result of the lawful exercise of his right to freedom of expression.” They assert that the domestic proceedings failed to consider all of the arguments made by the alleged victim and that the respective judgments were groundless. Accordingly, the petitioners alleged that the Peruvian State violated the rights to a fair trial and to freedom of expression enshrined in Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereto. 18. As for the alleged violation of the right to freedom of expression, the petitioners asserted that Article 5(h), of Law 24514, applied as the basis for the alleged victim’s dismissal, established a restriction on freedom of expression that must be examined in light of Article 13 of the American Convention. In their opinion, the Peruvian courts had the duty to assess and determine whether the Alfredo Lagos del Campo’s dismissal, as a subsequent imposition of liability for the exercise of his rights, was consistent with the conditions allowed under Article 13.2 of the Convention. 19. The petitioners asserted that Article 5(h) of Law 24514, which allows for workers to be fired for “verbal misconduct against the employer, its representatives, senior staff, or coworkers,” is characterized by its breadth, as it was impossible for workers in Peru to know, to a reasonable degree, the circumstances under which this provision could be applied. They further argued that the provision “makes no mention of expressions made in the context of disputes between employers and employees [….] or in other similar situations where labor or union leaders make statements or express themselves in the context of asserting their labor rights or interests.” In this respect, the petitioners asserted that the article is “a glaring omission with respect to the weighing of the public interest” of statements made in the context of labor disputes. 3