4. Colorable claim 30. For the purpose of admissibility, it pertains to the Commission to determine whether the facts described in the petition tend to establish violations of the rights enshrined in the American Convention, in line with the requirements of Article 47.b), or whether the petition, in conformity with Article 47.c), must be considered inadmissible for being “manifestly groundless” or for being “obviously out of order.” The standard for judging these two extremes is different from the one required to decide on the merits of a petition. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation, not for the purpose of establishing an alleged violation, but rather to examine whether or not the petition reports facts that could establish grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention. This review constitutes a summary review that does not imply any prejudgment or prior opinion on the merits of the case. 31. Likewise, neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require the petitioner to identify the specific rights that the State is allegedly violating in the case submitted to the Commission, although the petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the system’s case law, to decide in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable or could establish its violation if the allegations are proven on the basis of sufficient evidence. 32. The IACHR finds that the facts described by the petitioners could tend to establish violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. V. PROVEN FACTS 33. The four cases that are the subject of the present report are related to the issue of collective dismissals in Peru in the 1990s. This issue arose as a result of a series of general laws that gave rise to special standards and procedures for streamlining various state institutions. All four cases have in common the filing of suits for constitutional relief (amparo) against the dismissals stemming from said procedures and the negative response of the courts . In that regard, the Commission will examine the proven facts in four main respects: (i) General context of the collective dismissals; (ii) Special procedures in each of the institutions, their application to the alleged victims, and remedies invoked; (iii) Initiatives by the Peruvian State to provide reparation for the collective dismissals; and (iv) Situation of the alleged victims in this case with respect to those initiatives. A. General context of the collective dismissals 34. On July 28, 1990, Mr. Alberto Fujimori Fujimori came into office as President of Peru in accordance with the Political Constitution of 1979.8 First the Commission and then the Inter-American Court, in the Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro and others) v. Peru found that, in this framework, many irregular dismissals took place in the public sector.9 35. On September 27, 1991, Legislative Decree No. 674 was published whereby “it was declare(d) that promoting private-sector investment in the sphere of companies comprising the activities of state enterprises was of national interest.”10 8 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, par. 89.1. 9 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, par. 108. 10 Annex 1. Legislative Decree No. http://www.proinversion.gob.pe/RepositorioAPS/0/0/arc/ML_GRAL_PI_DL674/10-D_L_674.pdf 6 674. Available at: