REPORT Nº 4/09
February 11, 2009


On November 11 and 12, 1998, the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,”
or “the IACHR") received a petition submitted by Mr. Jesús Mogollón, Pablo Álvarez,
and the Single Workers Union of ECASA (Sindicato Único de Trabajadores de ECASA 1
(hereinafter also “SUTECASA” or "the petitioners") on behalf of the members of the
Single Workers Union of ECASA (hereinafter also “the alleged victims”), alleging
violation by the Republic of Peru (hereinafter also “Peru,” “the State,” or “the
Peruvian State") of the rights enshrined in Articles 8, 24, and 25 of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the American Convention,” “the
Convention,” or the “ACHR”).
The petitioners state that in the context of privatizing state-owned
companies in 1991 the government decided to liquidate the Empresa
Comercializadora de Alimentos S.A. (hereinafter also “ECASA”), causing the dismissal
of the alleged victims, ignoring the guarantees established in the Collective
Agreement that governed them, all on the basis of Decrees 057-90-TR and 107-90PCM, ordering the suspension of salary increases established under Collective
Agreements. The petitioners stated that given this situation they filed appeals for
protection of constitutional rights, appeals that were decided in their favor at all
levels. They specify that the final decision established that the aforementioned
decrees were not applicable to the ECASA workers, but that the Peruvian State has
failed to restore the status quo ante the application of those decrees by paying
benefits owed and recognized at various state levels.
For its part, the State of Peru argued that the decision it has allegedly
failed to comply with only declared that the Decrees were not applicable, without
establishing the payment of sums in favor of the alleged victims. The State indicated
that in order to obtain payment of the benefits that the petitioners feel are owned to
them, they have to file an ordinary declarative judgment action regarding that debt.
In this respect, the State argued that the petitioners failed to exhaust domestic
remedies in that they used the wrong legal route by resorting to a constitutional
mechanism rather than the indicated labor action.
After examining the positions of the parties in the light of the
admissibility requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American
Convention, the Commission concluded that it is competent to hear the claim
submitted and that the petition is admissible based on the alleged violation of right
enshrined in Articles 21, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, as they relate to the
general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. Articles
2 and 21 of the Convention have been incorporated by the Commission based on the
principle of iura novit curia. The Commission also concluded that the petition is
inadmissible as regards the alleged violation of Article 24 of the American Convention.
As a result, the Commission decided to notify the parties, make this Admissibility
Report public, and include it in its Annual Report.

1 Later, Mr. José Chulles Espinoza was constituted as co-petitioner.

Select target paragraph3