REPORT No. 150/10
Petitions 157-99 – José Castro Ballena, María Gracia Barriga Oré Et Al.
12.214 – Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya
November 1, 2010


1. This report refers to two petitions filed in representation of José Castro Ballena, María Gracia
Barriga Oré, Luz Angélica Soria Cañas and Dusnara Amelia Campos Ramírez (P 157-99) 1 and
Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya (P 12.214) 2 (hereinafter also “the alleged victims”), alleging
the violation by the Republic of Peru (hereinafter also "Peru," "the State" or "the Peruvian
State") of rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the
American Convention” or “the Convention”). The petitioners asserted that the alleged victims
were dismissed from their positions as employees of the Congress by decree-laws and
administrative resolutions issued as of April 1992, in a context of the rupture with the
democratic-constitutional order. It is indicated that those dismissals violated the guarantees of
administrative due process and other rights protected in the constitutional provisions. It is
adduced that the alleged victims filed amparo actions for the purpose of getting reinstated,
which were dismissed in final decisions of the Constitutional Court. The petitioners alleged that
while the Peruvian State has been granting benefits to the workers who were irregularly
dismissed during the presidency of Alberto Fujimori, such benefits would not suffice to redress
the material and moral damages said to have been suffered by the alleged victims due to their
arbitrary dismissal.
2. The State alleged that as of 2001, laws and supreme decrees have been issued aimed at
reviewing the irregular collective dismissals that took place between 1992 and 1993. It argued
that the workers harmed by those dismissals qualify for participation in Special Program for
Access to Benefits. It asserted that two alleged victims in petition 157-99 have accepted the
benefit of economic compensation, while the remaining alleged victims had resumed their
employment with the Congress of the Republic. It argued that these circumstances ended the
controversy addressed in petition 157-99, and asked the IACHR to archive it pursuant to
Article 48(1)(b) of the Convention. Finally, it alleged that the facts narrated in the two
petitions do not tend to establish a violation of the American Convention and asked that the
IACHR find them inadmissible pursuant to Article 47(b) of the same instrument.
3. After analyzing the parties’ positions, the Commission concluded that it has jurisdiction to
hear the petitions and that they are admissible in relation to the alleged violations of the rights
enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations
established in its Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. Moreover, it concluded that the claims set forth in
petition 157-99 on behalf of the alleged victims Luz Angélica Soria Cañas and Dusnara Amelia
Campos Ramírez are inadmissible, pursuant to Article 47(b) of the Convention. The IACHR
decided to join the two petitions and process them together in the merits phase under case
number 12.214, which covers alleged victims José Castro Ballena, María Gracia Barriga Oré
and Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya. Finally, the Commission decided to give notice of this
Admissibility Report to the parties, to make it public, and to include it in its Annual Report.


4. Petition 157-99 was received by the IACHR on April 5, 1999; the petitioner submitted
additional information on January 16, 2001 and July 31, 2002. On April 29, 2003, the pertinent
parts of that documentation were sent to the State with a time-limit of two months to submit a
response. On March 17, 2004, the State sent its response, and on July 7 and December 22,
2009, it filed additional briefs. The petitioner sent additional communications on May 10, 2004,
1 Filed on April 5, 1999, by José Castro Ballena.
2 Filed on September 20, 1999 in his own name.

Select target paragraph3