in nature. He states that on December 23, 2003, the 35th Criminal Court of Lima found his suit inadmissible,
indicating that the resolution in question was properly grounded and had been issued within the framework
of a proper process. He states that he appealed the ruling, but that the Second Specialized Criminal Chamber
for Processes Involving Imprisoned Inmates ratified the inadmissibility of the writ of habeas corpus on March
5, 2004, finding that there was no indication of a failure to provide justification in the resolution and that a new
constitutional review of the evidence was not necessary.
15. Later, he states that on August 12, 2004, the Constitutional Tribunal rejected the extraordinary motion
filed by the alleged victim, finding that it was not the proper forum for deciding on the criminal culpability of
the accused, nor for ruling with regard to the classification of the criminal offense, authorities that fell
exclusively to the ordinary criminal jurisdiction.
16. He states that years after serving his sentence, he discovered new evidence proving his innocence. He
indicates that statements made by Mr. Cordero Bernal to the Judiciary Oversight Office in the framework of a
criminal process brought against him and concluded on August 22, 2005, evidenced that there was no collusion
or concerted action between the judges and that the release of the individuals being prosecuted for drug
trafficking was based on judgment alone and without any pressure on Mr. Cordero Bernal. He states that
therefore, on August 18, 2009, he appealed for a review of the judgment, which was handled by the Supreme
Court of Justice. He states that on July 7, 2010, that court acquitted the alleged victim, concluding that it was
problematic to maintain his conviction for having allegedly conspired with former judge Cordero Bernal on
issuing a resolution when the latter had been acquitted of all charges.
Compensation process for damages
17. The petitioner states that with the aim of securing reparation for the damages caused, on November 25,
2011, he filed suit for damages against the public prosecutor and the judges who heard his case. He states he
based his lawsuit on Law 24,973, the Damages for Judicial Errors and Arbitrary Detentions Act. He states that
the defendants raised a number of objections, including the lack of clarity and ambiguity of the suit as well as
its being time-barred, which were rejected by the 37th Civil Court of Lima through Resolution 14 of October 7,
2014, and Resolution 15 of November 21, 2014.
18. He states that the defendants appealed these resolutions, and that on April 12, 2017, the Fifth Civil
Chamber of Lima overturned them, finding the objection that the suit was time-barred to be admissible and
concluding that the suit was filed after the six-month deadline established in article 27 of Law 24,973. It
therefore declared the lawsuit null and void and closed the case. In response to this, and arguing a violation of
his rights, he states that he filed a cassation appeal arguing that the deadline established in the aforementioned
article 27 is only applicable to situations of arbitrary detention and not to judicial errors.
19. He states that on October 24, 2017, the Provisional Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled the
appeal inadmissible, finding that it failed to establish that the deadline set by article 27 provided any exception
applicable to the case. The petitioner alleges that this judgment erroneously interpreted the aforementioned
article and that the article should not have been applied to rule the process time barred. He states that with this
ruling, the State has prevented him from receiving fair compensation upon having been unjustly convicted as
the result of a judicial error.
Request to be reinstated in the judicial career
20. Lastly, the alleged victim indicates that on September 23, 2010, he filed a request to be reinstated in the
judiciary, as he had been acquitted in the criminal trial over the facts for which he was dismissed. He states that
on June 20, 2012, the head of the Judiciary Oversight Office of the Judicial Branch found the request
inadmissible, arguing, on one hand, that Law 29,277 establishes that officials who have previously been subject
to the disciplinary sanction of dismissal may not be reinstated, and on the other, that Law 27,444 establishes
that procedures related to criminal or civil responsibility did not affect the authority of the entities to decide
on administrative responsibility. He alleges that the authorities’ refusal to reinstate him to the judiciary violates
his right to work.
3

Select target paragraph3