REPORT No. 112/11
July 22, 2011



On November 11, 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission”, “the Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a
petition lodged on behalf of Héctor Fidel Cordero Bernal (hereinafter also “the petitioner” or “the
alleged victim”), claiming the violation by the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “Peru”, “the State” or
“the Peruvian State”), of rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter
the “American Convention” or “the Convention”). The petitioner alleged that in August 1996 he was
removed from the position of interim [“Provisional”] Judge of the 4th Special Court for Criminal
Matters of Huanuco, for granting the unconditional release of two defendants under criminal
investigation for illicit drug trafficking. He contended that the administrative disciplinary proceeding
brought against him did not respect his due process guarantees. He added that the Peruvian courts
ruled that a petition for constitutional relief (an amparo suit) he brought in September 1996 against
the decision to remove him from office was groundless, thus rendering ineffective the guarantees
of independence and impartiality with which judges are required to act.
In response, the State argued that the alleged victim should have filed an appeal for
reversal of a labor judgment (demanda laboral de reposición) or a compliance action to compel
fulfillment of the law under the Peruvian Constitution (acción de cumplimiento), prior to submitting
his claim before the IACHR and that, in not doing so, he has failed to fulfill the requirement set forth
under Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. It added that the petition should be found inadmissible
based on Article 47(b) of the same instrument, in that it does not state facts that tend to establish a
violation of the rights and guarantees provided by the Convention.
After examining the position of the parties, in light of the admissibility requirements
set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission finds that it is competent
to hear the petition and that the petition is admissible with regard to alleged violations of the rights
enshrined in Articles 9, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2
of the same instrument. The Commission decided to give notice of this Admissibility Report to the
parties, publish it and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.


On November 11, 1998 the petition was received by the IACHR and was registered
under number 911-98. The petitioner submitted additional information in communications received
on July 20, 2006 and October 3, 2007. On March 17, 2008, the relevant portions of those submissions
were forwarded to the State, which was granted a period of two months to respond, in keeping with
the IACHR Rules of Procedure.
On August 4, 2008 the State submitted its reply and, on September 29, 2010 and July
8, 2011 it submitted additional information. The petitioner made additional submissions on October
30, 2008, July 19, 2010 and May 3, 2011.

Select target paragraph3