REPORT No. 37/161
NORKA MOYA SOLÍS
AUGUST 12, 2016
On March 22, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition filed by Norka Moya Solís
(hereinafter “the petitioner” or “the alleged victim”) against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “Peru” or “the
State”) for the alleged violations committed by the Judicial branch of the State, which removed her from her
position as judicial clerk (secretaria judicial) arbitrarily and in violation of due process guarantees when
analyzing her claims with regard to that removal.
The petitioner argues that the State violated her rights to humane treatment, judicial
guarantees, the protection of honor and dignity, and judicial protection, for being removed from her job as
judicial clerk as the result of an irregular proceeding; and that in response to the defense actions she filed for
said arbitrary removal, the judicial authorities did not respect due process guarantees nor did they give her
effective judicial protection.
The State argues that at no time did the Peruvian judicial branch violate the petitioner’s
human rights, for it argues that her judicial guarantees were respected in all the judicial proceedings, and that
she was accorded effective judicial protection.
Without prejudging on the merits of the complaint, after analyzing the parties’ position, and
in keeping with the requirements set forth at Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “American Convention” or “Convention”), the Commission decides to find the case admissible in
relation to the allegations regarding the possible violation of the rights enshrined in Article 8 (judicial
guarantees) and Article 25 (judicial protection) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention.
The Commission also decides to notify the parties of this decision, to publish it, and to include it in its Annual
Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE IACHR
The IACHR received the petition on March 22, 2000, and on December 6, 2002, forwarded a
copy of the pertinent parts to the State, which it gave two months to submit its observations, pursuant to Article
30(3) of its Rules of Procedure in force at that time. On February 12, 2003, the State requested an extension for
filing its observations; that extension was granted by the IACHR. The State’s response was received on April
14, 2003; it was forwarded to the petitioner on April 22, 2003.
The petitioner submitted additional observations on May 29, 2003, August 2, 2011, and April
14, 2014. The State submitted additional observations on May 18, 2011 and July 17, 2014. These
communications were forwarded to the other party in due course. In the processing of this petition the
Commission, by note of June 30, 2011, asked the petitioner for up-to-date information, indicating that if it were
not received the petition could be archived in the terms of Article 48(1)(b) of the Convention and Article 42 of
the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure. The petitioner, as already noted, responded to this request by communication
of August 2, 2011.
In keeping with Article 17(2)(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Francisco José Eguiguren Praeli, of
Peruvian nationality, did not participate in the debate or decision in the instant matter.