Law of Foundations of the Administrative Career Service. They added that the alleged victims enjoyed the right to labor stability provided for in Article 48 of the 1979 Constitution, and that the only grounds for their dismissal would be a grave breach established in a disciplinary proceeding, and not a “process for streamlining personnel.” 15. It is argued that the alleged victims filed administrative appeals to challenge resolution 1303-B-92-CACL, but that neither the Administrative Commission nor the Democratic Constitutional Congress, which was installed on December 30, 1992, ruled on those appeals. It is adduced that the alleged victims filed amparo actions, described below, which were declared unfounded by the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court. The petitioners noted that those higher courts, when they issued those judgments, were made up of judges linked to the government. In this respect, they provided press clippings that describe the criminal convictions and administrative sanctions imposed on former members of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court for alleged bribery and collusion with then-presidential adviser Vladimiro Montesinos. The petitioners argued that those courts were not independent and that their members did not act impartially, especially in matters sensitive to the policies and interests of the government of Alberto Fujimori. 16. The petitioners alleged the adoption of a Special Program of Access to Benefits through Law 27803 does not fully cover the material and moral damages arising from the dismissal of the alleged victims. In addition, it is indicated that the inclusion in that program is contingent on waiving any type of judicial claim against the Peruvian State, both domestically and in supranational forums. 9 2. Specific arguments José Castro Ballena, Luz Angélica Soria Cañas, Dusnara Amelia Campos Ramírez, and María Gracia Barriga Oré (P 157-99) 17. The petitioner stated that on July 2, 1993, the alleged victims jointly filed an amparo action seeking annulment of resolution 1303-B-92-CACL. It is indicated that said action was declared well-founded by the 23rd Civil Court of Lima and by the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, by resolutions of September 30, 1993, and November 30, 1994, respectively. 18. The petitioner asserted that the legal representative (Procurador) of the Congress filed a motion for annulment before the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which considered that the respondent, reserve Colonel Carlos Novoa Tello, had not been duly notified of the amparo action by the 23rd Civil Court of Lima. He indicated that after the case went back to that court, to cure the error in notice, the Supreme Court of Justice handed down a judgment of August 5, 1997, declaring the amparo action inadmissible. He noted that on September 25, 1998, the Constitutional Court ratified the decision referred to by the Supreme Court of Justice, and that on January 22, 1999, that decision was published by the official gazette El Peruano. According to the petitioner, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court grounded their decision on the fact that the chair of the Administrative Commission, Mr. Carlos Novoa Tello, did no more than carry out Decree-Laws Nos. 25,477, 25,640, and 25,759, without that having affected any constitutional right to the detriment of those filing the amparo actions. 19. The petitioner indicated that on August 1, 1995, alleged victim María Gracia Barriga Oré was hired as a permanent staff member of the Congress of the Republic. Petitioner stated that Luz Angélica Soria Cañas and Dusnara Amelia Campos Ramírez availed themselves of the benefit of economic compensation provided for in Law 27803. Petitioner and alleged victim, Mr. José Castro Ballena, stated that while he worked for 12 months in a position of trust in the office of Peruvian legislator Luz Doris Sánchez Pinedo, from 2000 to 2002, that did not mean he was reinstated, but rather that he was working under a temporary contract that did not 9 The fourth supplemental provision of Law 27803 establishes the following: The irregular dismissals of those former workers who have judicial proceedings under way are covered by this law, so long as they refrain from bringing a judicial claim. 4