REPORT Nº 56/08 CASE 11.602 ADMISSIBILITY WORKERS DISMISSED FROM PETRÓLEOS DEL PERÚ (PETROPERÚ) NORTHWEST – TALARA AREA PERU July 24, 2008 I. SUMMARY 1. On February 19, 1996, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereafter the “the Commission” or “IACHR”) received a petition submitted by the Consolidated Petroleum Workers Union of Peru for the Northwest-Talara Area [Sindicato Único de Trabajadores de Petróleos del Perú Zona Noroeste-Talara] on behalf of 85 workers (hereafter “the alleged victims” or “the petitioners”) against the Republic of Peru (hereafter “Peru,” “the Peruvian State,” or the “State”). 1 The petition alleges that the 85 alleged victims were fired as part of a collective dismissal carried out based on legal norms contrary to the Constitution and that the alleged victims were prevented from exercising their right to defense with regard to the dismissal decision. 2. The petitioners allege that the State infringed to their detriment on the rights protected by Articles 8, 9, 24 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), in accordance with the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights set forth in Article 1.1 of the said instrument. With regard to compliance with admissibility requirements, the petitioners allege that they exhausted the court system with an amparo motion and that they lodged their petition within the deadline set forth in the American Convention. They also state that they have complied with the other requirements for admissibility and competence. In addition, the petitioners point out that the State recognized its responsibility for the violations alleged in their petition by issuing Law No. 27803, which was adopted to review the collective dismissals carried out by state companies undergoing processes to promote private investment. The petitioners point out that, this recognition notwithstanding, the benefits provided for by said law does not meet the criteria established for comprehensive reparation in international jurisprudence. 3. The State alleges that the case is inadmissible pursuant to Article 47.b and 47.c of the American Convention because the events described in the petition are not human rights violations. The State argues that all due process rules and guarantees were observed in the domestic legal processes carried out; these same guarantees were observed in the privatization of public companies and in the personnel reduction and streamlining program at PETROPERU S.A. In addition, the State alleges that after Peru’s constitutional democratic government was reinstalled, it adopted 1 On May 27, 1999, the 85 alleged victims in the case sent a communication via their legal representative, Carolina Loayza Tamayo, requesting that they be considered petitioners in order to “be able to communicate directly with the Commission so that they could directly defend their rights enshrined in the Convention before this international body.” On March 1, 2006, Ms. Loayza Tamayo, along with the alleged victims, informed the Commission that she would no longer be representing eight of the alleged victims (Edwin Quevedo Saavedra, Abraham Montero R., Oscar Valiente Paico, Jaime Noriega G., Carlos Zapata Olaya, María Medina Crisanto, José Saavedra M, Antonio Esparza Huamán, and Delia Arévalo de Benítez), who would thenceforth represent themselves directly before the Commission. On October 12, 2007, the IACHR received a communication from attorney Loayza Tamayo in which she indicated that she would now only be representing 29 of the original alleged victims. 1