2008. In those reports, the IACHR ruled that the petitions were admissible and indicated that the allegations
could tend to establish a violation of rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in
connection with the obligations set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument.
6.
Regarding case 11.602, in the stage on the merits, the petitioners submitted briefs on
February 12 and June 18, 2009. As for the State, it submitted a brief on June 25, 2009. Subsequently, the
Commission continued receiving communications from the petitioners and the State, which were duly
forwarded to the parties.
7.
Regarding case 12.665, in the stage on the merits, the petitions submitted a brief on
February 16, 2009. As for the State, it submitted a brief on June 15, 2009. Subsequently, the Commission
continued receiving communications from the petitioners and the State, which were duly forwarded to the
parties.
8.
Regarding case 12.666, in the stage on merits, the petitioner submitted a brief on June 4,
2009. As for the State, it submitted a brief on December 4, 2008. Subsequently, the Commission continued
receiving observations from the petitioners and the State, which were duly forwarded to the parties.
9.
The fourth petition—case 12.385—was received by the Commission on September 8, 2000.
On October 5, 2001, the State submitted its observations regarding the petition. On October 23, 2001, the
IACHR informed the parties that “taking into account the position of the illustrious Peruvian State regarding
the requirements for admissibility,” by virtue of Article 37.3 of its Rules of Procedure, it had decided to
postpone dealing with its admissibility until the discussion and ruling on the merits. On June 6, 2005, and
January 6, 2006, the petitioners submitted observations on merits. On March 15, 2006, the State submitted its
observations on the position of the petitioners. The Commission has continued to receive observations from
the petitioners and the State, which have been duly forwarded to the parties.
III.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.
Position of the petitioners
10.
The petitioners in the four cases alleged that, in the early 1990s, the Peruvian Government
enacted various legislative measures aimed at adopting a program promoting private-sector investment.
They said that, on the basis of these laws, a special process was established to ensure the collective dismissal
of employees from a number of public institutions, including Petroperú, ENAPU, MINEDU, and MEF. They
indicated that the legal provisions on which their dismissal was based were not only unconstitutional but also
violated the provisions of the American Convention as they abridged their rights to a fair trial and judicial
protection. They specified that they were unable to challenge their dismissals, either by administrative or
judicial remedies, that they could not exercise their right to defense, and that they did not have access to the
rules and subsequent performance evaluations that were conducted to justify their dismissals, among other
adverse impacts.
11.
In the case of ENAPU, the petitioners indicated that, in February 1996, the employers of said
company sent letters to the 28 alleged victims offering them a voluntary retirement plan and that if they did
not accept it their employment contracts would be terminated. They indicated that the alleged victims
decided not to accept this arrangement and were dismissed as a result. They reported that the National
Federation of ENAPU Employees (hereinafter “Fentenapu”), which included the 28 alleged victims, filed suit
for constitutional relief (amparo) alleging violation of their rights. They indicated that the various courts, and
[… continuation]
4 IACHR, Report No. 55/08, Petition 532-98, Admissibility, Workers Dismissed from Empresa Nacional de Puertos S.A.
(ENAPU), Peru, July 24, 2008.
5 IACHR, Report No. 56/08, Case 11.602, Admissibility, Workers Dismissed from Petróleos del Perú (Petroperú) – Northwest
Talara Area, Peru, July 24, 2008.
2