was of the opinion that, in this case, no offense was proven that would jeopardize the content of a constitutional right or violate due process. 37. As for the alleged violation of the right to challenge court decisions before the Constitutional Court in light of the fact that its members had been removed, the State said that the break in the Court’s activities pursuant to Decree Law 25418 of 1992 did not affect the processing of cases for the protection of rights. The State noted that the legal system provided the mechanisms for appealing the denial of the amparo petition, specifically the extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court. In addition, the State cited Law 26435 of 1995 and transition provision No. 5 thereof, which allows the Constitutional Court to hear denials of amparo through a petition for cassation. The State further indicated that Article 1 of Law No. 26835 established a deadline of 60 business days from the date of the law’s publication for the interested party to notify the Constitutional Court of its interest in having the amparo case adjudicated. The State emphasized that there were procedural mechanisms that Mr. Lagos del Campo could have used, and that they were available until the new Constitutional Court was seated in June, 1996. 38. Finally, the State alleged that Mr. Lagos del Campo’s previous claim seeking to have his amparo case reopened and heard by the Constitutional Court in 1996 was ruled inadmissible by the Third Specialized Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court, since Mr. Lagos del Campo failed to timely appeal before the appropriate court. The amparo case had been shelved in 1993, and his request was filed on January 14, 1997. 39. In sum, the State reiterates that the fact that the appeals were not adjudicated in the alleged victim’s favor does not mean that his rights were violated, “since it is the pursuit of justice that must take priority, not the favoring of one of the parties.” V. ESTABLISHED FACTS 40. Pursuant to Article 43.1 of its Rules of Procedure (hereinafter, the “Rules of Procedure of the IACHR”), the Commission examined the arguments and weighed the evidence provided by the parties. In so doing, it took account of information that is public knowledge,2 including laws, decrees, and other legal provisions in force at the time of the events at issue in this case. 41. The Commission notes that the State has maintained that it is not responsible for the violations alleged by the petitioners. The parties submitted consistent information regarding Mr. Lagos del Campo’s dismissal, and the court proceedings he initiated—none of which is in dispute. Therefore, the Commission will address below the facts that have been established in this case, as well as the international responsibility of the Peruvian State. a. The Industrial Communities in Peru 42. The Industrial Communities were created in Peru in 1970 by the Industries Act, with the aim of giving employees an interest in the assets of companies.3 Later, in 1977, the Industrial Community Law (Decree Law 21789) was enacted to amend the objectives, formation, and operation of the Industrial Community.4 43. According to Decree Law 21789, “The Industrial Community of an industrial corporation in the reformed private sector is made up of all of its permanent employees, who have an interest in its 2 Article 43.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR establishes that: The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge. 3 President of the Republic of Peru. Decree Law 18384. Industries Act [Ley General de Industrias]. September 1, 1970. Article 3.a. Available at: http://docs.peru.justia.com/federales/decretos-leyes/18384-sep-1-1970.pdf1970.pdf. 4 Annex 1. President of the Republic of Peru. Decree Law 21789. Industrial Community Law [Ley de la Comunidad Industrial]. February 1, 1977. Available at: http://www4.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/imagenes/Leyes/21789.pdf 7