41 2. Violation of job security 2.1 Arguments on labor rights 133. In this case, the Court notes that, in the litigation before this Court, neither the representatives nor the Commission expressly mentioned the presumed violation of labor rights in light of the American Convention. However, the Court has noted that, in all the instances, both at the domestic level and before the Commission, the presumed victim repeatedly alleged that his labor rights had been violated, in particular his right to job security, and also the consequences of the dismissal. For instance:169 a. In a communication of October 13, 1993, addressed to the President of the Inter-American Commission, and received in the OAS offices in Peru on October 14, 1993, Mr. Lagos del Campo stated that, in the judgment delivered by the Second Labor Court “[there were] procedural irregularities that infringed [his] judicial protection, thus violating the provisions of [his] country’s Constitution that guaranteed to every Peruvian citizen the right to due process of law and the right to work.” In annex 1 to this communication, the petitioner clarified, among other matters, that his “right to job security indicated in article 48 of the Constitution and articles 27 and 26 of the proposed new constitution” had been violated.”170 b. In a communication dated September 30, 1994, addressed to the Inter-American Commission and received in the OAS offices in Peru on October 4, 1994, the petitioner stated that “the violation of [his] constitutional and human rights, such as the right to a fair trial and the right to work that the senior authorities of [his] country were aware of, [and] up until [then] there [had not been] any judicial action or justice […].”171 c. In a communication of the Workers’ Federation of the Metallurgical Industry of Peru (FETIMP) on behalf of Mr. Lagos del Campo, addressed to the President of the Inter-American Commission dated June 4, 1997, and received by the Commission on August 5, 1998, the Federation “describe[d] the case of the Peruvian citizen and member of [its] union organization, Mr. Lagos del Campo, who was […] unjustly dismissed from his workplace in CEPER PIRELLI, S.A. on June 26, 1989. He was a victim of poor administration of justice when he had recourse to the domestic courts and, is still demanding a response to application for amparo No. 2651-91.” It also mentioned that, at that date, no answer had been received to the letter sent to the Commission on October 14, 1993, through the OAS Office in Lima.172 d. In a petition addressed to the Commission on June 30, 1997, Mr. Lagos del Campo “file[d] a complaint of a human rights violation against the Peruvian Government for violating the right to equal protection of the law (Art. 22) and also the right to judicial protection against violations of fundamental rights (Art. 23) […].” He also asked that the petition be admitted and processed “to achieve the re-establishment of [his] rights to equal protection of the law, due process, and the right to work, which [had been] violated by the Second Labor Court and CC.LL., by the decision resulting from an irregular process […]”173. e. The Commission responded to Mr. Lagos del Campo in a communication of September 2, 1997, received on September 24, 1997, by the FETIMP, in which the Commission advised the petitioner that his petition had “not met the requirements established in the [IACHR] Rules of Procedure, in particular Articles 32, 33, 34 and 37 […].” The Commission also asked the petitioner 169 The italics and bold letters have been added. 170 Initial petition before the IACHR (evidence file, procedure before the IACHR, ff. 271, 436, 439, 510 and 558 to 561). Brief of September 30, 1994, presented to the OAS Office in Peru (evidence file, procedure before the IACHR, ff. 516 and 594). 171 172 Brief of the FETIMP dated June 4, 1997 (evidence file, procedure before the IACHR, f. 525). 173 Petition lodged before the IACHR (evidence file, procedure before the IACHR, ff. 371 and 377).