cure the damages resulting from his dismissal, in November 1992, as a permanent employee of the Congress. 20. Finally, the petitioner affirmed that the Peruvian State is responsible for violating the rights enshrined in Articles 8, 24, and 25 of the Convention. Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya (P 12.214) 21. Petitioner alleges that on February 25, 1993, Mr. Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya filed an amparo action in which he called for the annulment of resolution 1303-B-92-CACL. On April 30, 1993, the 30th Civil Court of Lima disqualified itself from hearing the case, indicating that the claim does not make out an amparo action but rather an acción popular. It is argued that after the appeal was filed, the Fourth Civil Chamber set aside the ruling of disqualification and returned the case to the 30th Civil Court of Lima. It is indicated that on January 25, 1995, that court found the amparo action inadmissible and that on August 7, 1995, the Fourth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima amended the decision, declaring the amparo action well-founded. 22. The petitioner indicated that after the filing of the motion for annulment by the legal representative (Procurador) of the Legislative branch, the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice overturned the decision on appeal, decreeing, on June 28, 1996, that the amparo action was not well-founded. He stated that this decision was ratified on by the Constitutional Court on August 6, 1998. According to the information presented, Mr. Canales Huapaya was given notice of this last decision on March 26. 1999. 23. The petitioner argued that among the 1,117 workers of the Congress dismissed in late 1992, only two were able to secure their reinstatement judicially, after filing a contentiousadministrative action. He indicated that hundreds of other workers opted to pursue a judicial claim or obtained adverse judicial decisions when pursuing amparo claims. Finally, he alleged that the Peruvian State is responsible for violation of the human rights enshrined in Articles II and XIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and Articles 8, 24, and 25 of the American Convention. B. The State 1. Common arguments 24. The State provided reports from the Director of Human Resources of the Congress of the Republic, which show the labor history of the alleged victims. It argued that when dismissed, they were hired as permanent staff in the terms of Legislative Decree No. 276. It stated that the decree-laws that authorized the temporary dissolution and “administrative streamlining” (“racionalización administrativa”) of the Congress were not amended or derogated by the Democratic Constitutional Congress, installed on December 30, 1992, or by the current Constitution of January 9, 1993. 25. It noted that the Special Program of Access to Benefits established by Law 27803 provides for different measures that have resulted in a “comprehensive solution to the irregular collective dismissals that occurred during the processes of reorganization carried out in 1992 and 1993.” 26. The State rendered a narration similar to that of the petitioners with respect to the judicial proceedings around the amparo actions brought by the alleged victims. Finally, it alleged that the facts narrated in the petitions do not tend to establish the violation of rights protected in the American Convention and it asked that the IACHR find them inadmissible pursuant to Article 47(b) of that instrument. 2. Specific arguments 5