REPORT No. 37/161 PETITION 124-00 ADMISSIBILITY REPORT NORKA MOYA SOLÍS PERU AUGUST 12, 2016 I. SUMMARY 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. II. PROCEDURE BEFORE THE IACHR 4. 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. 5. 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. 1 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. 1

Select target paragraph3