REPORT Nº 35/98
CASE 11.760
MANUEL AGUIRRE ROCA, GUILLERMO REY TERRY, AND DELIA REVOREDO DE MUR
PERU
May 5, 1998
I.
BACKGROUND
1. On June 2, 1997, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the
Commission") received a complaint against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter "the Peruvian
State" or "the State"). The pertinent parts of that complaint were transmitted to the State
through a letter dated July 16, 1997, requesting information on the events denounced and any
other information that might enable the Commission to judge whether or not all domestic
remedies had been exhausted in this case.
2. On August 23, 1996, Law No. 26,657 was passed, which interprets article 112 of the
Constitution of Peru, entitling President Alberto Fujimori F. to seek a second [consecutive]
term in office. On August 29, 1996, the Bar Association of Lima filed an "action of
unconstitutionality" with the Constitutional Court stating that the aforementioned law violated
article 112 of the Constitution.
3. On December 27, 1996, the Constitutional Court issued its judgment thereon, in exercise of
its broad interpretative powers [potestad de control difuso], ruling that Law No. 26,657,
published on January 17 and 18, 1997, could not apply to President Fujimori.1
4. On January 14, 1997, days before the publication of that judgment, four members of
Congress from the majority party, some of whom later composed the investigating and
prosecuting committees (infra), sent a letter to the members of the Court in which they
attempted to block the ruling finding Law No. 26,657 inapplicable.
5. On January 20, 1997, the Bar Association of Lima filed a motion for clarification of the
judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court on December 27, 1996. That clarification,
according to the petitioners, in keeping with a verbal agreement among members of the Court
that was subsequently ratified in the minutes of the administrative plenary session, was dealt
with by Justices Aguirre Roca, Rey Terry, and Revoredo de Mur, who stated that there was
nothing to clarify.
6. On January 15, 1997, Justice Delia Revoredo publicly denounced the possible removal of
documents from her office. On January 15 and 20, 1997, several members of Congress
requested the establishment of an investigating committee to look into the accusations made
by the aforementioned Justice.2
7. On February 28, 1997, the Congress approved the establishment of a committee to
investigate the accusations of harassment and other forms of pressure exerted on the Court.
8. Meanwhile, the congressional investigating committee reached a majority opinion that Dr.
Ricardo Nugent (President), Dr. Manuel Aguirre Roca, Dr. Guillermo Rey Terry, and Dr. Delia
Revoredo de Mur should be accused of violating the Constitution for having "usurped the name
of the Constitutional Court by deciding on the request for clarification filed by the Bar
Association of Lima in unconstitutionality suit No. 002-96-TC."
1 Broad control of the constitutionality of legal norms is established in article 138 of the Constitution of Peru: "In all
cases in which an incompatibility exists between a constitutional norm and a legal norm, the judges prefer the first."
The requests to establish the committee called for: "(1) the appointment of a multipartisan seven-member
investigating committee to clarify the accusation made by Dr. Delia Revoredo de Mur…"; and (1) the establishment of
an investigating committee to look into the alleged orders to pressure the Constitutional Court…"
2 According to information from the EFE news agency, as of April 14, 1998, Delia Revoredo de Mur and her husband
were seeking asylum in Costa Rica, due to alleged pressure and threats to their physical integrity.
1