9. On the occasion of that accusation, the full Congress, through an agreement of May 28,
1997, reached a majority decision to dismiss Justices Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey
Terry, and Delia Revoredo de Mur, for "violation of the constitution."
II.
PETITIONERS
10. On May 20, 1997, a group of members of the Congress of Peru (hereinafter "the
petitioners") filed a complaint with the Commission against the Republic of Peru for violating
the human rights of the Constitutional Court justices dismissed from their posts.
III.
PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION
11. The pertinent parts of the petitioners' complaint were transmitted to the State on July 16,
1997. Through a note dated October 16, 1997, the State presented its response, wherein it
alleges that the complaint is inadmissible because domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
The State indicated that the complaints based on the violation of a constitutional right lodged
by the victims are still pending before domestic courts and that domestic remedies must be
exhausted before a case can be presented to the Commission. On October 21, 1997, the
Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of that response to the petitioners.
12. On February 25, 1998, during the 98th regular session, the Commission held a hearing to
discuss aspects of the admissibility of this complaint. At that hearing, the parties provided the
Commission with new background information. To that end, the petitioners invoked the
exception provided in article 46.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter
"the Convention).
13. In that regard, the petitioners maintain that the remedies available under domestic law are
not adequate or effective and therefore do not need to be exhausted. They call into question
the judicial branch, which is responsible for deciding on the complaint based on constitutional
guarantees, which is being hindered by strong political interference in the government's
reorganization of the judiciary. Also being disputed is the independence of the judicial branch,
citing the example of the rotation of judges who deliver judgments not in the interest of the
government, in violation of the principle of "juez natural" (judges whose position is created by
law with general jurisdiction over an issue before or at the time it arises). Finally, the
petitioners indicate that the actions of guarantee filed by the victims under domestic law
should be decided upon in the Constitutional Court, the members of which are prevented from
issuing a judgment thereon, in keeping with procedural norms, because they participated in
the events that gave rise to the complaint.
14. They also say that the deadline for resolving the actions of guarantee lodged by the victims
has long since passed, without any results as of the time of the hearing. Congress dismissed
the justices named in this petition on May 28, 1997 and, almost one year later, there had still
not been a final ruling on the action for the violation of constitutional guarantees filed. They
further add that the deactivation of the Constitutional Court has blocked the operations of the
organ controlling the constitutionality of laws, as well as the right of all citizens to an
independent and impartial court.
15. The State, in turn, reiterated its allegation that domestic remedies had not been exhausted
since the complaint is still pending, thus making the complaint inadmissible. It indicated that
the three former justices had filed complaints based on constitutional guarantees with the
judiciary that are still pending a ruling. Therefore, all the pertinent judicial bodies (the Court of
First Instance, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court) are operating. The State added
that the final resort would be the Constitutional Court, which it said was operating. It also
stated that there is no need for any ruling on the merits of the matter in dispute or the alleged
events and rights invoked by the petitioners, since that would interfere with the autonomy of
the jurisdictional organs of the Peruvian State.
16. With regard to the dismissed justices, the State indicated that the 1993 Constitution
established proceedings to impeach a president, vice president, cabinet ministers, or members
2