34. With regard to the disciplinary process, the Commission observes that in response to the resolution issued on August 14, 1996, by the CNM ordering the alleged victim’s dismissal, he filed a writ of reconsideration, which was denied on December 4, 1996. The case file indicates that in response to this, the petitioner turned to the constitutional jurisdiction and filed a constitutional amparo, which was denied on June 2, 1997, by the First Specialized Public Law Court of Lima. Subsequently—although on appeal—the Provisional Corporate Chamber Specialized in Public Law of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima overturned the ruling, finding the suit inadmissible on November 3, 1997. This decision was upheld by the Constitutional Tribunal on October 25, 1999, in resolving a constitutional appeal filed by the petitioner. 35. In view of this, the Commission concludes that the remedies were duly exhausted with the constitutional judgment issued on October 25, 1999, in compliance with articles 46(1)(a) of the Convention and 31(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. 36. Without prejudice to this, the Commission takes into account that, for the purposes of securing reinstatement in his office, the petitioner filed a request that was dismissed by the Head of Oversight of the Judiciary on the grounds that a legal provision made it impossible to reinstate an official who had previously been sanctioned with dismissal. 37. As regards the determination of the alleged victim’s criminal responsibility and the lawsuit for damages, the Commission observes that the criminal prosecution of Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez for the crime of obstruction of justice concluded with the decision handed down by the Special Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on July 24, 2003. It also notes that following the acquittal of Mr. Cordero Bernal on August 22, 2005, the petitioner appealed for a review of the judgment before the Supreme Court of Justice. This appeal was resolved on July 7, 2010, with the alleged victim’s acquittal and the annulment of his conviction. The documents found in the case file indicate that the petitioner was notified of this judgment on September 6, 2010. 38. In response, and with the aim of securing reparation for the damages caused by the criminal punishment imposed on him, on November 25, 2011, the alleged victim filed suit for damages. The Commission observes that in points 9 and 10 of his lawsuit, on the legal grounds and procedural route, the petitioner cites Law 24,973, the Damages for Judicial Errors and Arbitrary Detentions Act, as the legal basis for his claim. 39. Later, on April 12, 2017, in response to the objections raised by the defendants, the Fifth Civil Chamber of Lima declared the suit invalid and closed the process on finding that the alleged victim’s lawsuit was timebarred on having been filed past the six-month deadline set by article 27 of Law 24,973.1 In this regard, it found as follows: The deadline established in the law must be counted from the date on which the plaintiff was notified of the judgment to acquit issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, as that is the moment as of which the actor would be able to claim, under Law 24,973, that an alleged arbitrary detention or judicial error was imposed and executed. 40. In this regard, it is clear that Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez was notified on September 6, 2010, of the judgment acquitting him that was handed down on July 7, 2010, and that he filed suit on November 25, 2011. This decision was upheld on October 24, 2017, by the Provisional Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. 41. In this regard, the Commission has established that domestic remedies must be exhausted pursuant to domestic procedural legislation. The Commission cannot conclude that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies was properly met if the remedies have been rejected based on reasonable and not arbitrary procedural grounds, such as remedies sought before domestic courts that are time-barred.2 In this case, the Commission takes into account that domestic law offers an opportunity to seek compensation for arbitrary detentions and judicial errors through procedures set forth in Law 24,973, which also establishes a deadline of six months. However, it notes that the suit was filed by the petitioner 14 months after being notified of the judgment to acquit. This prevented domestic courts from ruling on the merits of the matter. 1 2 Article 27. The opportunity to file suit for damages expires six months after the arbitrary detention. IACHR Report No. 90/03, Petition 0581/1999. Inadmissibility. Gustavo Trujillo González. Peru. October 22, 2003, para. 32. 6