REPORT No. 126/12
CASE 12.214
MERITS
CARLOS ALBERTO CANALES HUAPAYA ET. AL.
PERU
November xx, 2012

I.

SUMMARY

1.
The present report refers to two petitions filed on behalf of Carlos Alberto Canales
1
2
Huapaya (P 12.214), José Castro Ballena and María Gracia Barriga Oré (P 157-99) [hereinafter also
referred to as “the alleged victims”], alleging violation by the Republic of Peru (hereinafter also referred to
as “Peru,” “the State” or “the Peruvian State”) of the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the
American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also referred to as “the American Convention” or “the
Convention”). The petitioners asserted that the alleged victims were dismissed from their posts as
Congressional employees by means of decree-laws and administrative resolutions issued as of April
1992, in a context of breakdown of democracy. They indicated that those dismissals breached the
guarantees to due process of administrative laws and other rights protected in domestic constitutional
law. It was claimed that the alleged victims filed petitions on constitutional grounds to be reinstated, but
these petitions were dismissed by final judgments issued by the Constitutional Court. The petitioners
alleged that, although the Peruvian State has been providing benefits to the employees dismissed
irregularly in the nineties, during the administration of President Alberto Fujimori, it was not enough to
repair material and moral damages that the alleged victims suffered from as a result of the arbitrary
dismissal from their jobs.
2.
The State alleged that, as of 2001, it had enacted laws and issued supreme decrees
aimed at reviewing the irregular collective dismissals that took place in the nineties. It contended that the
affected employees were entitled to participate in a Special Benefits Access Program (Programa
Extraordinario de Acceso a Beneficios), governed by Law 27803 of July 28, 2002. Finally, it asserted that
the allegations raised by the petitioners do not constitute a breach of the American Convention and
requested the IACHR to declare the case groundless.
3.
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, with respect to its obligations set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same
instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya, José Castro Ballena and María Gracia
Barriga Oré.
II.

PROCESSING BY THE IACHR

4.
Petition 157-99 was received by the IACHR on April 5, 1999, whereas petition 12.214
was received on September 20 of that same year. The processing of both petitions until the decision on
3
admissibility is explained in Admissibility Report No. 150/10 of November 1, 2010. On that occasion, the
IACHR decided to process the petitions jointly in the merits stage, under case No. 12.214. In Report No.
150/10, the IACHR stated that the claims of the petitioners were admissible with respect to a possible
violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection with
the obligations set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument.

1

Submitted September 20, 1999 on his own behalf.

2

Submitted April 5, 1999 by José Castro Ballena.

3

IACHR, Report No. 150/10, Petitions 157-99 and 12.214, Admissibility, José Castro Ballena and others, Peru, November
1, 2010, paras. 4 and 5, available at www.oas.org/es/cidh/decisiones/admisibilidades.asp#inicio.

1

Select target paragraph3