decided to continue to hear them in the proceedings in Case 11.830. At the same time, the
IACHR advised both Peru and all of the petitioners of that fact.
III.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.
Position of the petitioners
6. The petitioners claim that on April 5, 1992, the head of the Executive Branch of the Peruvian
Government, Alberto Fujimori, ordered the dissolution of Congress and the complete
reorganization of the Judicial Branch, the Constitutional Court, the National Judiciary Council,
the Office of the Attorney General, and the Office of the Inspector General. The petitioners
assert that such a situation led to the arbitrary removal of officials and employees who had
been appointed to their posts in accordance with regulations that predated April 5, 1992.
7. The petitioners say that the congressional personnel were laid off from their jobs by
Executive Decisions Nos. 1303-A-92-CACL and 1303-B-92-CACL, which provided for the
dismissal of a total of 1,117 congressional employees and were published on December 31,
1992, in the official gazette, “El Peruano”. They claim that the dismissal was carried out
without the least respect for the guarantees of due process, and that it was totally arbitrary
inasmuch as it was not supported by any of the grounds provided for in the regulations in force
at the time.
8. The petitioners say that a group of 234 former congressional employees filed an amparo suit
appealing the aforesaid executive decisions, which was heard by the 28th Civil Court of Lima.
By judgment of June 26, 1995, that court upheld the petition and ordered that the employees
who instituted the aforesaid proceeding be reinstated in their jobs.
9. The petitioners say that the Fifth Chamber for Civil Matters of the Superior Court of Lima, on
hearing the appeal filed against the lower court decision, delivered a new judgment on
February 21, 1996, and reversed the decision of the lower court. The petitioners filed a special
appeal [recurso extraordinario] with the Constitutional Court against that judgment. At the
time the petition was lodged with the Commission, a decision was pending on the appeal.
10. The petitioners say that the Constitutional Court issued a decision on November 24, 1997,
that was published in the official gazette, "El Peruano," on January 12, 1998, and upheld the
judgment of the appellate court. In the course of the trial other employees had joined the
amparo suit, with the upshot that the above decision of the Constitutional Court finally applied
to the 257 employees whose names are mentioned in the annex to the instant report. The
petitioners add that the evidence they presented to the Constitutional Court was not accorded
its due value. They mention their disagreement with the legal reasoning used in the abovementioned judgment of the appellate court and in the aforesaid decision of the Constitutional
Court, and declared that it amounted overall to a violation of the rights to a fair trial and
judicial protection recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. They say that
the Constitutional Court was not and impartial tribunal, due to the removal of three of its
members by the Congress, and to the fact that the remaining judges of that court lacked the
requisite independence and impartiality to hear the case.
B.
Position of the State
11. With respect to Case 11.830, the State claimed that the proceedings in connection with the
amparo suit brought by the petitioners were continuing before the Constitutional Court, and
that the delay in reaching a decision was due to the need to safeguard the procedural
guarantees of the parties involved. The State added that the claimants acted improperly in
appealing to international jurisdiction, when there were available to them suitable procedural
mechanisms under domestic law for challenging any acts or decisions that threaten or injure
fundamental rights.
12. With regard to the formal requirements for its admission, the State said that petition
lodged by the petitioners had to be examined independently of their initial application for
precautionary measures. The State claimed that the allegations made in the petition are
2