5.
On November 10, 2010, IACHR forwarded the Admissibility Report to the parties and
granted the petitioners three months to submit their observations on the merits of the case. In the same
communication, the Commission indicated that it would be at the disposal of the parties to reach a friendly
settlement with regard to the case. On December 3, 2010, the petitioners indicated their interest in
starting negotiations with the Peruvian State for the purpose of entering into a friendly settlement
agreement. The State, however, did not indicate that it would be interested in starting procedures to reach
a friendly settlement.
6.
On February 26, 2011, the petitioners submitted their observations on the merits of the
case and, on March 18 of that same year, additional observations were forwarded. On March 24, 2011,
that information was forwarded to the Peruvian State, which was given three months to present its
observations on the merits. On June 29, 2011, the State sent its response, providing additional
information in briefs received by the IACHR on February 28, June 29, August 23, 2012. The petitioners
presented additional communications on September 26 and October 12, 2011, May 5, July 9, October 12,
2012.
III.

THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.

The petitioners

7.
In its observations on the merits of the case, the petitioners reiterated their allegations
that the State was responsible for breaching the rights provided for in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the
Convention, because of the presumably irregular dismissal of the alleged victims from their employment.
They indicated that this took place after the breakdown of democracy, with the coup d’état perpetrated by
former President Alberto Fujimori on April 5, 1992. They indicated that, in that context, decree-laws were
issued which, among other measures, provided for the dissolution and administrative restructuring of the
Congress of the Republic. They indicated that on April 16, 1992, Decree-Law No. 25438 was published,
establishing a Committee to Administer the Assets of the Congress of the Republic (Comisión
Administradora del Patrimonio del Congreso de la República) (hereinafter referred as the Administrative
Committee), which was in charge of a “staff streamlining process.” They indicated that the process
consisted of evaluating Congressional employees by means of a competitive examination so that they
could have their employment confirmed or be dismissed if they did not obtain the minimum score
required.
8.
The petitioners asserted that, by means of Resolution No. 1239-A-92-CACL, it was
provided that “the Committee to Administer the Assets of the Congress of the Republic would not
consider any challenges to the results of the examination.” They pointed out that, in the light of DecreeLaw No. 25759, the evaluation process would conclude on October 18, 1992, but the first competitive
examination was declared null and void after a series of reports in the media about the advanced sale of
answers to the exam. They indicated that the examination was rescheduled for October 24 and 25, 1992,
although at that time the Administrative Committee did not have a duly appointed standing chair.
9.
The petitioners asserted that on November 6, 1992, Supreme Resolution 532-92-PCM,
entrusting the chairmanship of the Administrative Committee to Reserve Army Colonel Carlos Novoa
Tello, was published. They claimed that Article 87 of the Constitution of 1979, in force at the time,
established that administrative resolutions would come into force the day after their publication; therefore
the appointment of Mr. Novoa Tello came into force only on November 7, 1992. They pointed out that,
after participating in the evaluation process, the alleged victims were dismissed from their jobs by means
of Resolution 1303-B-92-CACL. They stressed that, although the above-mentioned resolution was
published on December 31, 1992, it was effective retroactively to November 6, 1992, on which date the
authority who issued the resolution, Mr. Carlos Novoa Tello, had not been instated as Chair of the
Administrative Committee.
10.
The petitioners asserted that failure to pass an evaluation process does not constitute a
cause for dismissal of civil servants, as provided for in Legislative Decree No. 276, known as the Law for
the Bases of the Administrative Career Stream. They added that the alleged victims enjoyed the right to

Select target paragraph3