REPORT No. 63/19 CASE 13.036 MERITS NORKA MOYA SOLIS PERU1 May 4, 2019 I. INTRODUCTION 1. On March 21, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission,” “the Inter-American Commission” or “the IAHCR”) received a petition submitted by Norka Moya Solís (hereinafter “the petitioner”) alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State,” “the Peruvian State,” or “Peru”) for the violation of several rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) to the detriment of Ms. Moya Solís for the alleged violation of due process in the decisions that removed her from her position of Judicial Secretary of the Third Court for Labor and Labor Communities. 2. The Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 37 on August 12, 2016.2 On September 1, 2016, the Commission notified the parties of that report, and placed itself at their disposal to pursue a friendly settlement, without the conditions being present for solving the case using that procedure. The parties had the times as set forth in the Rules of Procedure for submitting additional observations on the merits. All the information received from either party was forwarded to the other party. II. A. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS Petitioner 3. By way of context the petitioner indicated that on July 3, 1973, she was appointed auxiliary in Court VII2 of the Labor jurisdiction and on December 31, 1979, she was appointed clerk of court V-2 in the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Labor Courts. She said that at the time of the facts she was working as Clerk of Court of the Tenth Labor and Labor Communities Court. 4. She indicated that in December 1981, Laws No. 23344 No. 23369 regulated the procedures for the appointment and ratification of judicial officers, including clerks of court. To carry out this legislation a Commission of Judges was formed by Supreme Decree No. 003-82 JUS, in December 1982, to proceed to ratify the clerks of court. 5. She said that on September 13, 1982, she was verbally informed that after reviewing the case files under her charge, and of undertaking an evaluation of her work, the Commission on Ratification had decided not to ratify her in her position as clerk of court. 6. She said that the decision violated the procedure established in Laws No. 23344 and No. 23369, because the Commission on Ratification, made up of 10 judges, was stalemated on the decision as to whether to ratify her in her position. In the petitioner’s view the decision should have been based on the principle of in dubio pro operario or the President of the Chamber should have cast a tiebreaker vote in keeping with the rules governing the procedure. 7. She said that in response to that decision, she proceeded to file a motion for review (recurso de revisión) against the decision issued by the Tribunal of Labor and Labor Communities for Lima en banc before the Pursuant to Article 17(2) of the IACHR Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Francisco José Egiguren Praeli, a Peruvian national, did not take part in the discussion or the decision-making process of the instant case. 2 IACHR, Report No. 37/16, Petition 124-00. Admissibility, Norka Moya Solís, Peru, August 12, 2016, para. 27. In that report the IACHR found the petition admissible for possible violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligation established in Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 1

Select target paragraph3