-30until the conclusion of the negotiations aimed at reaching a proposed solution and
would be composed of representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Labor and Social Advancement, the Municipalidad
Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) and the Sindicato de
Trabajadores Municipales de Lima (Lima Municipal Workers Union).
156. On June 19, 2003 the period established for Peru to submit information on its
compliance with the recommendations contained in Report No. 66/02 expired.
According to the Commission, “the State did neither reply nor submit any
information.”
157.
In referring the case to the Court, the Commission pointed out that
It appreciates the attitude of the Peruvian State to acknowledge its international
responsibility for disregarding the decisions rendered by its judges, but, due to the State’s
repeated failure to comply with the recommendation contained in the report on the
merits, to the unsuccessful attempts since the petition was filed before this Commission,
through the friendly settlement process, and through the creation of various commissions
to that purpose which yielded no tangible results, the Commission has decided to bring
this case to the jurisdiction of the Honorable Inter-American Court.
B)
ALEGATION OF NEW MATTER BEFORE THE COURT
158. In its brief containing the preliminary objections, the answer to the petition,
and the submission of comments on the brief containing the petitions and
arguments, the State argued that “it considers that there is no responsibility” in the
instant case, since it gained knowledge that corruption connections were in place
among the leaders of SITRAMUN, the Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (SIN)
(National Intelligence Service)) and members of the Judiciary, for which reason
“disclaims the legal validity, the binding authority [,] or the executive merit of
decisions resulting from collusion, bribery and corruption which oppose the decisions
rendered by the highest judicial and constitutional authorities which have acquired
the force of a final and enforceable pronouncement.” Peru argued that there was a
“vicious circle” created from the SIN to “demolish the image” of the major of Lima,
who was a “prospective political opponent” of Fujimori, wherefore “artificial labor
conflicts were created, the major was harassed with accusations and complaints and,
finally, all legal actions, particularly those started by previously well-briefed trade
union leaders were adjudicated against the Municipality […], thus causing a situation
of permanent social instability, and generating high costs resulting from litigation as
well as large debts for rights allegedly derived from such legal actions.” According to
the State “[th]at is the true source and substance of the decisions the compliance
with which is sought.”
159. To the same effect, at the public hearing held at the Court, Peru stated that a
“new matter had arisen of which it had absolutely no knowledge two years before”
and “which explains why the Peruvian State had previously acknowledged its
responsibility for the non-compliance and violations of rights and why at present […]
it requests that the Court take into consideration this new matter […] which […]
makes it necessary to reexamine the situation from the standpoint of the seriousness
of the fact itself.” In its written final arguments it insisted on this matter, stating that
“[i]n the previous decade, a general corruption system had been implemented from
the Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional -SIN- (National Intelligence Service) under
Vladimiro Montesinos-Torres, [… w]ithin wh[ich …] the total control of the Judiciary