2 VII. RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION AND PRIVATE PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS 1. Established facts 2. Scope of the violation of the right to judicial protection in this case. 3. Alleged violation of the right to private property para. 50 VIII. REPARATIONS A. Injured Party B. Measures of satisfaction B.1 Publication of the Judgment C. Compensation C.1 Pecuniary damage C.2 Non-pecuniary damage D. Costs and Expenses E. Method of compliance with ordered payments paras. 86-88 paras. 89-90 paras. paras. paras. paras. IX. OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS para. 146 paras. 51-69 paras. 70-76 paras. 77-85 paras. 91-92 93-115 116-132 133-139 140-145 I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTROVERSY 1. On January 16, 2010 and in keeping with Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed an application against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) with regard to case number 12.384, Union of Lima Water and Sewer Service Functionaries, Professionals, and Technicians, originated by a petition received by the Commission on April 14, 2000, and registered under No. 166/2000. On April 18, 2002, the State acknowledged its international responsibility before the Inter-American Commission in this case for the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention, upon which a friendly settlement process began in the case; said process concluded without the two parties reaching an agreement. On March 17, 2009, the Commission issued its Admissibility and Merits Report No. 8/09, in the terms of Articles 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure and 50 of the Convention.3 On April 16, 2009, the State was notified of the aforementioned report and granted a time period of two months to report on the measures taken to comply with the Commission’s recommendations.4 After finding that Peru “did not comply with the recommendation made” in the report, the Commission decided to submit this case to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Commission designated Mrs. Luz Patricia Mejía, Commissioner, and Mr. Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as Delegates, with Mrs. Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Mrs. Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Specialist of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisors. 2. The application centers on an alleged “violation of the right to judicial protection to the detriment of 233 members of the Union of Lima Water and Sewer Service Functionaries, Professionals, and Technicians (hereinafter SIFUSE, [in the Spanish acronym]) due to the State’s failure to provide an effective remedy with regard to the [alleged] retroactive application of decrees that, between 1991 and 1992, eliminated the salary scale system that was in effect [...] despite the fact that the applicable Political 3 In that report, the Commission ruled that Article 25 of the American Convention had been violated and held that “the elements presented by the petitioners do not tend to be characterized by violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 [fair trial] and 24 [equal protection] of the American Convention.” Report N° 8/09 of March 17, 2009. Case of 12.384. Admissibility and Merits. Union of Employees, Professionals, and Technicians of the Water Utility and Sewage Services Company of Lima (SEDAPAL). Perú (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, appendix 1, folio 13). 4 In the report, the Commission recommended that the Peruvian State “[t]ake the measures necessary to give the victims access to a judicial or other remedy that is adequate and effective for providing reparations with regard to the violation of their rights caused by the retroactive application of Law Decree 25876, as well as for the lack of judicial protection in this situation.” Report N° 8/09 of March 17, 2009, supra note 3, folio 21.