REPORT Nº 52/00
CASES 11.830 and 12.038
DISMISSED CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES
PERU
June 15, 2000
I.
SUMMARY
1. The instant report on admissibility covers Cases 11.830 and 12.038, which have been
combined because they concern the same events, namely the dismissal of a group of 257
employees of the National Congress of the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “Peru”, “the State” or
“the Peruvian State”), who attempted, by means of domestic legal remedies, to impugn two
executive decisions issued in 1992, whereby a total of 1,117 employees of that Congress were
dismissed. The petitioners claim that Peru violated, to the detriment of the aforementioned
257 dismissed employees, who pursued the remedies under domestic law, the rights to a fair
trial and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on
Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or the “American Convention”). The State
contended that the case was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”, “the Inter-American
Commission” or “the IACHR”) considers that the situation that must be taken into account, in
order to determine if domestic remedies have been exhausted, is that which exists at the
moment of adopting a decision on admissibility, and decides to admit the petitions as regards
the alleged violations of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles
8 and 25, respectively, of the American Convention on Human Rights, without prejudging the
merits of the matter.
II.
PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION
2. The petition relating to Case 11.830, originally lodged as an application for precautionary
measures by Messrs. Adolfo Fernández Sare, Angela Valdéz Rivera, Roberto Ribotte Rodríguez,
María Huaranga Soto, and Manuel Carranza Rodríguez, both in their own name, and on behalf
of other dismissed congressional employees, was received by the IACHR on October 18, 1997.
The Commission opened the case on November 10, 1997, transmitted the pertinent portions of
the petition to the State, and requested it for information to be submitted within a period of 90
days. Peru replied on January 26, 1998. On March 26, 1998, the petitioners lodged a petition
with the Commission that reproduced the alleged facts contained in the original application for
precautionary measures, as well as submitting a copy of a judgment delivered by the
Constitutional Court on November 24, 1997, published in the official gazette, “El Peruano,” on
January 12, 1998.
3. On February 4, 1999, Pedro Antonio Quiñones Seminario and Augusto Salomón Bellindo
Orihuela, both former congressional employees asked to named as co-petitioners in the case.
Both parties submitted additional information and observations on different occasions. In a
communication of October 20, 1999, the Bar Association of Lima asked to be named as copetitioner in the case and presented letters from various former congressional employees
requesting that they be represented by the said Bar Association in Case 11.830 before the
IACHR.
4. In addition, the petition relating to Case 12.038 was received by the IACHR on July 10,
1998. That petition was lodged by Messrs. Zoila Luz Begazo Salazar, Jorge Luis Pacheco
Munayco, and 19 other persons, acting both in their own name and on behalf of other
employees dismissed from the Congress. The Commission opened the case on August 4, 1998,
transmitted the pertinent portions of the petition to the Peruvian State, and requested it for
information to be submitted within a period of 90 days. Peru applied for an extension in which
to respond and, this granted, did so on November 11, 1998. On June 28, 1999, the
Commission received an amicus curiae brief from the National Ombudsman [of Peru].
5. On June 9, 2000, the Commission, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Article
40(2) of its Regulations, combined the petitions relating to Cases 11.830 and 12.038, and
1