that “the payment of [pension] contributions by the State shall in no case be for a period
longer than 12 years.”52
76. Under that law, between 2002 and 2004, three lists of employees who should be
included in the National Registry were published:
First list
Second list
Third list
Total
Ministerial Resolution
No. 347-2002-TR
Ministerial Resolution
No. 059-2003-TR
Supreme Resolution
No. 034-2004-TR
22/12/2002
7,079 former employees
27/12/2003
10,920
employees
10,124
employees
28,123
employees
02/10/2004
former
former
former
77. Later, the State issued a new list of irregularly dismissed employees who “were not
able to be included in the initial lists.” As of August 2017, the Ministry of Work and Promotion
of Employment published five lists of irregularly dismissed employees:53
Fourth list
Fifth list
Total
Supreme Resolution
No. 028-2009-TR
Supreme Resolution
No. 142-2017-TR
05/08/2009
7,676 former employees
17/08/2017
8,855 former employees
16,531
employees
former
78. In addition, on July 6, 2016, Law 30484 was enacted, which reactivated the Executive
Committee of Law 27803. Law 30484 provides for the incorporation of the beneficiaries who
had opted for reincorporation or reassignment but had yet to enjoy that benefit. This norm
also allowed the beneficiaries to change their option to financial compensation or early
retirement.54
B.
The dismissed congressional employees involved in this case
79. The alleged victims are part of a group of congressional employees dismissed under
Resolutions 1303-“A”-92-CACL and 1303-“B”-92-CACL.
80. The 20 alleged victims in Petition 725-03 filed a writ of amparo in which they requested
that Resolution 1303-“B”-92-CACL, which ordered their dismissal, be declared null and void
and that they be reinstated to their jobs. The Second Specialized Court of Public Law, on
September 10, 2001, held their claim inadmissible because a writ of amparo was not an
appropriate remedy.55 That decision stated:
FIRST: That the writ of amparo is a remedy with a very rapid procedure, without an evidentiary
stage, that consists only of the juridical reasoning and logic of the operator of justice, who
can only reestablish the right that has been violated; provided that it is through specific
52
Cf. Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 78.
Cf. Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 77 and Case of the Dismissed Employees of
Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 130.
53
54
Between 2001 and 2021, a total of six laws and a decree were adopted on this matter: Law 27487 of
June 23, 2001; Law 27586 of December 12, 2001; Law 27803 of July 29, 2002; Law 29059 of July 6, 2007;
Law 30484 of July 6, 2016; Law 31218 of June 10, 2021 and Supreme Decree 019-2021-TR of September 30,
2021.
55
Decision of the Second Specialized Court of Public Law of September 10, 2001. File 2972-01. Writ of
Amparo (evidence file, fs 2439 to 2447).
22