REPORT No. 14/15 CASES 11.602, 12.385, 12.665 and 12.666 REPORT ON MERITS DISMISSED EMPLOYEES (PETROPERÚ, MEF AND ENAPU) REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS (MINEDU) PERU MARCH 23, 2015 I. SUMMARY 1. Between February 1996 and March 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission,” “the Inter-American Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received four petitions regarding 1631 persons,2 alleging the international responsibility of the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State,” “the Peruvian State,” or “Peru”) because of the alleged irregular dismissal of civil servants from their jobs in various state institutions, namely: the state oil company Petróleos del Perú (hereinafter “Petroperú”), the Ministry of Education (hereinafter “MINEDU”), the Ministry of Economy and Finance (hereinafter “MEF”) and the state seaport administration company Empresa Nacional de Puertos S.A. (hereinafter “ENAPU”), respectively. 2. The petitioners alleged that their dismissals were decided upon by means of decree law decree laws and administrative decisions issued as of April 1992 in a context of the breakdown of democratic law and order. They indicated that these dismissals undermined their fair-trial guarantees under administrative law as well as other constitutional rights. They said that the alleged victims filed suits for constitutional relief (amparo) aimed at their reinstatement but they were rejected. They added that, although the Peruvian State has granted benefits to some of the alleged victims, it is not enough to redress the material and moral damages that they have suffered as a result of the arbitrary loss of their jobs. 3. As for the State, it denied that the facts claimed by the petitioners constitute violations of the American Convention. It contended that the dismissals were carried out pursuant to the laws in force at the time and that from 2001 onward laws were adopted to review the alleged irregularity of the collective dismissals that took place. In particular, it highlighted that Law No. 27803 of July 28, 2002 provided various benefits to the persons affected by the above-mentioned dismissals. 4. After examining the position of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in connection with the obligations set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, based on the denial of tothe persons indicated in the respective section, in the context of the collective dismissals that occurred in Peru in the 1990s. Accordingly, the Commission has made the relevant recommendations. II. PROCESSING BY THE IACHR 5. Between February 1996 and March 2002, the Inter-American Commission received four petitions whose processing, up until the decision on admissibility in three of them, is explained in detail in reports on admissibility Nos. 54/08,3 55/08,4 and 56/08,5 respectively, all of which were adopted on July 24, 1 See Annex 1 to the present report. In case 11.602, on the basis of communications of July 31, 2009 and March 30, 2010, Mr. Federico Antón voiced his intention to withdraw as an alleged victim in case No. 11.602. On March 23, 2011, the Commission issued Reported No. 56/11 whereby his claim was archived. 2 These petitions are part of a larger group of cases about the same subject which are currently being heard by the Commission in other stages of proceedings. 3 IACHR, Report No. 54/08, Petition 160-02, Admissibility, Employees Dismissed from the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), Peru, July 24, 2008. 1