-40From January 1996 relations between the Municipality of Lima and the Workers’ Union became unstable. In March 1996, 186 employees were dismissed. On April 1, 1996, the union called on a strike for an indefinite period of time to claim for the reinstatement of the dismissed employees and for the restoration of the employees’ rights. “In retaliation”, the mayor dismissed around 500 employees. After that, the witness “stepped down from the strikes and went back to his work.” In October 1996, the Municipality imposed a staff assessment exercise involving redundancy as a possible outcome. The witness passed the assessment and 231 workers were declared redundant and dismissed. A month later, “inexplicably and in disregard for the Law,” the Municipality scheduled another staff assessment for December, which he failed. He was “unfairly and abruptly” dismissed in December 1996 together with other 300 workers, on the grounds of redundancy. He filed an appeal for legal protection together with other 42 dismissed workers. A year later, they obtained a favourable judgment. He felt “more frustrated than ever in his life before” to see that the court judgments were “a dead letter” because the authorities did not comply with them. Together with the Union leaders, he turned to the Church, the Ombudsman, the Bar Association and the National Congress, “to ask them to intercede … and have the court judgments that favoured [them] be complied with.” However, “none of it was of any use.” He felt “sad, resentful, frustrated and impotent.” The financial consequences of his dismissal have been “devastating,” as they “ruined [his] life and cast [him] into incapacity.” After his dismissal he found it very hard to get a steady job, as he was 45 years old. His children were the most affected; three of them had to drop out of secondary school so that thew could work and support the household. As a consequence of the distress, his wife left in January 2001. As a result, he suffered a “brain stroke which caused him hemiplegia, paralyzing the entired left side of [his] body.” He has had to resort to the financial aid of his sister to meet the cost of the treatment. As a result of his illness, he requested the Municipality of Lima to pay him what was owed to him. However, “they showed total unconcern for [his] delicate situation” and argued that “they were unable to pay [him] and that [he should] wait until there [would be] sufficient budget allocations.” He currently receives tips and some provisions by occasionally helping his brother with his plastic products stand in the market. In 2003, the Municipality started to make him part payments for the monthly salaries owed for October, November and December 1995. In Februrary 2004, after a judgment by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court), he was reimbursed the amount of the 30% reduction that had been applied to his salary during 1996. The witness requested that “international justice enforces the judgments for the poor and that [his] rights would be restored.” 3. Yeny Zully Cubas-Santos, alleged victim She started working at the Municipality of Lima on June 1, 1979 in the Dirección de contabilidad del Área de Conciliación Bancaria (Accounting Department of the Bank Auditing Area). When she was dismissed she held the position of an “E-class” professional.