REPORT No. 19/15
PETITION 320-03 AND OTHERS
JUDGES NOT RENEWED BY THE CNM
ADMISSIBILITY
PERU
MARCH 24, 2015

I.

SUMMARY

1.
The present report refers to five petitions submitted between 2003 and 2008 by judges and
prosecutors (hereinafter also referred to as “the alleged victims”) who had been dismissed from their jobs by
the National Judicial Council of Peru (Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura—CNM) (hereinafter referred to as
“CNM”) in the framework of the process of evaluating and renewing judges and prosecutors as established by
the Constitution.
2.
In general, the alleged victims allege that CNM’s resolutions that led to non-renewal of their
employment, were not substantiated. It was indicated that, at the time they were terminated, the regulatory
framework that was in force prohibited judicial and administrative review of CNM’s decisions. Finally, in the
petitions, it is alleged, in general, that the State is responsible for violation of the rights enshrined in Article 5
(right to humane treatment), Article 8 (right to a fair trial), Article 9 (principle of applicable law and nonretroactivity), Article 11 (protection of honor and dignity), Article 23 (political rights), Article 24 (equality
before the law), Article 25 (judicial protection), and Article 26 (progressive development), in connection with
Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and Article 2 (duty to adopt domestic legal effects) of the American
Convention.
3.
The State requested that the petitions be ruled inadmissible because the cases were no longer
a matter of dispute as, in terms of domestic law, legislative amendments had been made to the regulatory
framework that breached the rights protected by the American Convention or because the incidents described
do not constitute a breach of the rights enshrined in said treaty. It also indicated that, in domestic law, there
were all the regulatory and judicial opportunities afforded to the petitioners to secure protection of their right,
and therefore the State alleges that remedies under domestic law were not exhausted.
4.
After examining the positions of the parties and compliance with the requirements set forth
in Articles 46 y 47 of the Convention, the Commission decided to declare petition 822-08 inadmissible and to
declare petitions 320-03, 948-04, 739-08 and 1065-08, included in the present report, admissible with respect
to Articles 8, 9, 23 and 25 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights in connection with the obligations
established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, and inadmissible with respect to possible violations
of articles 5, 11, 24 and 26 of the American Convention. The Commission also decided to bring together the
admissible petitions under number 12.993. It also decided to notify the parties and order its publication in the
Annual Report of the General Assembly of the OAS.
II.

PROCEEDINGS WITH THE COMMISSION

5.
The Commission accumulates the petitions of this report due to the fact that the alleged
violations arose in connection to the same legal framework and have a factual similarity. All the petitions were
received between May 2003 and July 2008. Each one of the petitions was duly forwarded to the State, and the
communications sent by the petitioners were also forwarded to the State on a timely basis, in accordance with
the terms of the Convention and the Rules of Procedure. The details of the principal aspects of the procedures
of each petition can be found in the section on the specific allegations, which summarizes the position of each
petitioner.

Select target paragraph3