Disciplinary process
7. He states that the CNM launched a disciplinary process against the alleged victim in which he testified and
submitted exculpatory evidence. He indicates that in a resolution issued August 14, 1996, the CNM concluded
that the procedural omission by the Plenary Chamber and the irregular appointment of the aforementioned
judge meant that Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez “committed acts that, while not criminal, compromise the dignity of
the office of the president of the Superior Court and, in the eyes of the public, undermining the spirit of article
31 of law 26,397.” It therefore ordered his dismissal and canceled his appointment as judge.
8. In response to this decision, he filed a writ of reconsideration, which was denied on December 4, 1996, by
the CNM based on the same grounds as his dismissal. He states that on February 11, 1997, the alleged victim
filed a writ of amparo against the CNM, alleging that the documents accompanying his defense brief were not
taken into account and that the alleged serious infractions attributed to him are no such thing, and therefore,
his right to freedom of work and to remain in office were violated. This constitutional action was declared
groundless by the First Specialized Public Law Court of Lima on June 2, 1997, which concluded that the CNM
acted in strict adherence to its functions and with all due respect for its legal authorities.
9. He states that in response to the appeal he filed, the Provisional Corporate Chamber Specialized in Public
Law of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima overturned the ruling and declared the suit inadmissible on
November 3, 1997, finding that his remaining in office depended on the procedure carried out by the CNM.
10. He states that he submitted an extraordinary appeal before the Constitutional Court, which it declared
inadmissible on October 25, 1999, on finding that the administrative procedure brought against the alleged
victim had respected his due process guarantees and that no violation of his constitutional rights was
Criminal process
11. The petitioner states that, based on the facts leading to his dismissal, the Executive Committee of the Public
Ministry filed a criminal complaint against him for the crimes of breach of public duty and obstruction of justice
on July 31, 1997. It states that the Office of the Public Prosecutor alleged collusion between the alleged victim
and Cordero Bernal to grant unconditional release to the individuals who were being processed for drug
trafficking crimes. It states that on June 12, 1998, a criminal process was launched and an arrest warrant was
issued, subsequently executed on January 30, 2003.
12. It states that the Supreme Investigation Judge issued a judgment on March 25, 2003, finding that the facts
surrounding the appointment of Mr. Bernal and the corresponding resolution were essentially administrative
in their origin and consequences. Therefore, there was no illegal conduct as defined in the criminal offense of
breach of public duty and therefore, acquitted him of the crime. However, it did find him guilty of the crime of
obstruction of justice, indicating that because of the subordinate relationship between the office of the alleged
victim and Mr. Cordero Bernal, the former had put pressure on the latter to grant conditional release to the
citizens being processed for drug trafficking, with the result that they were able to escape justice. It therefore
sentenced him to five years in prison and banned him from holding public office during that time, ordering him
as well to pay a fine.
13. He states that he finished serving his sentence on January 29, 2008, and that he was deprived of liberty
starting on May 12, 2004, and was granted the benefit of semi-release from May 13, 2004, onward. He states
that as a result of this unjust process, he was deprived of liberty for 15 months.
14. He states that he appealed his conviction, an appeal that was admitted by the Special Criminal Chamber of
the Supreme Court of Justice. The Chamber upheld his conviction on July 24, 2003. He states that in response
to this, he then filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the process was irregular, as the decision lacked
rationale and violated the presumption of innocence and the right to be judged by an impartial judge. He also
argued that the actions for which he was prosecuted do not constitute a crime and are strictly administrative

Select target paragraph3