REPORT Nº 4/09 PETITION 914-98 ADMISSIBILITY MEMBERS OF THE SINGLE WORKERS UNION OF ECASA PERU February 11, 2009 I. SUMMARY 1. 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”). 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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.