213. In this regard, the State argued that it is not appropriate to pay Mr. Cuya the payment of
salary for the time he did not work, and the victim intends to support his request on an
assumption, in that sense, “it cannot be said that Mr. Cuya […]would have inevitably continued as
a magistrate from November 2002 onwards, therefore, the expert makes an error by accounting
for said period […] in order to calculate the amount for lost earnings and obtain the amount
requested.” It objected to the Court assessing the expert opinion provided, as it was not requested
by the Court. In addition, the State made several clarifications about the additional evidence
presented by the victim.
214. Regarding Mr. Valenzuela, his representatives requested the payment of lost salary from
August 28, 2002 until the date of the presentation of the brief of motions and pleadings, based
on the salary that he would have received as a judge at present, receiving about USD 4,816.00
(four thousand eight hundred and sixteen United States dollars), as well as the payment of
employer social security contributions. The State opposed the victim's request because it would
not be possible, given that the salary scale has had variations since Mr. Valenzuela was not ratified,
and reported on the salary income from the position of a regular specialized judge and a
provisional superior judge as of the date of non-ratification, composed of the items of
remuneration, jurisdictional bonuses and operating expenses.
215. Regarding Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse, the representative reported that
they had the same scale ranking, and in the additional evidence he presented a payment slip for
the salary he received in June 2001, at the time of his termination, and the items of which it was
composed. In this regard, the State presented several clarifications on the additional evidence
presented by the victims.
216. The State indicated that the victims, when referring to the compensatory reparations,
referred to the salary made up of the “remuneration”, the “Operating Expenses”, the “Bonus for
Jurisdictional Function” and the “Bonus for Fiscal Function” and clarified that operating expenses
are intended to cover expenses in carrying out the role of magistrate (Judge or Prosecutor), it
being understood that magistrates who are not carrying out the role, should not receive said
concept, which is not remunerative, nor pensionable and on said amount the magistrates must
render an account to the respective office. It also clarified regarding the jurisdictional bonus and
the fiscal function bonus, which are also not remunerative. Said bonuses will be awarded to
magistrates in active service. For this reason, the State only reported on the basic remuneration
in force on the position held by the victims when they were not ratified in office. The current
remuneration is S / 2,005.07 for a Regular Specialized Judge, while the remuneration of a
Provisional Superior Judge is S / 3,005.07. The remuneration in the case of Mr. Cuya and Mr.
Valenzuela is the same. As for Mr. Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez, who had the same position at the time
of the non-ratification, the basic remuneration in force for a Provincial Deputy Prosecutor is S /
1,405.05
217. Lastly, regarding the information provided by the State and the representatives to this
Court, Mr. Cuya continued to work and receive income after leaving office, and the last employer
recorded is the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. Mr. Díaz also continued working
in the free exercise of the profession, in some cases his employers were public entities (District
Municipality of El Tambo, Regional Government of Junín, Provincial Municipality of Huamanga).
According to the information provided by the State regarding Mr. Cuya, the Social Security
Normalization Office (hereinafter “ONP”) has not processed any request regarding the granting of
pension rights and regarding Mr. Díaz, after consultations made, it reported that he has been
affiliated with the Private Pension System (SBS) since January 14, 1997 and the SBS indicated
that he does not have a pension application as an affiliate. At the time of removal, he was not
awarded a severance pension and he does not have any pension to date. Regarding Mr.
Valenzuela, he has received a retirement pension since September 2002 and regarding Ms.
Rodríguez, she has received a severance pension since July 13, 2001.
54