146. It should be noted that, as the procedure was regulated, the commission in charge evaluated
all the documentation and information received, ordered it, processed, and analyzed it. After which,
at the end of the ratification process, the Permanent Commission for Comprehensive Evaluation and
Ratification of the CNM prepared the report that was submitted to the plenary session of the CNM, so
that it could decide whether to ratify the magistrate evaluated, or not. The Court has verified,
according to the reports, that the alleged victims were given a qualitative assessment, according to
the criteria evaluated by the judges: suitability (with the following indicators: jurisdictional output,
professional training, qualifications from the Judicial Academy), and conduct (with the following
indicators: police, criminal and judicial records, public complaints, 140 information from the Bar
Associations, asset and income history and other information). Regarding the criteria evaluated
for prosecutors, the qualitative assessment was divided into 1) jurisdictional output, 2)
professional training, 3) professional behavior.
147. From all of the foregoing, it can be inferred that Messrs. Cuya, Valenzuela, Díaz, and Ms.
Rodríguez were aware of the regulations that governed the evaluation and ratification procedure,
and three of them submitted the required statements in this regard, except Mr. Valenzuela. It is
evident that in this case the CNM decisions were issued taking into account the reports of the
Permanent Commission of Evaluation and Ratification of Judges and Prosecutors of the CNM, which
in turn were prepared based on the criteria established in the regulations current at the time of
the events. Consequently, the alleged victims were aware of the normatively established
evaluation criteria related to the evaluation of their conduct, suitability and performance in the
position, for which reason this Court does not find that in this case the State is responsible for the
violation of the principle of legality.
148. Furthermore, as previously indicated, the alleged victims did not present specific
allegations in a timely manner in relation to the violation of Article 11 of the Convention. However,
the representative of Mr. Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez in their final arguments pointed out that “the
dignity of the human person is configured as a constituent legal principle of fundamental rights,
it is the ontological presupposition through which [t]he State will not only act respecting the
autonomy of the human being and fundamental rights as limits to its intervention; rather, it must
provide the minimum causes so that the individual himself can achieve the development of his
personality and the free choice of his life plans, which is called the ‘life project’.” 141
149. This Court considers that said assertions are related to their privacy, since the alleged
victims did not know the reasons for their removal from office due to the lack of substantiation for
the CNM's decisions, according to the situation presented at the time of the events. In this way,
the alleged victims were identified as officials who were not ratified because of their conduct or
because of their incapacity, without stating the reasons that justified the decision adopted by the
CNM. In this regard, the Court has indicated that the right to privacy “recognizes that everyone
has the right to its respect, prohibits any illegal attack against honor or reputation, and imposes
140
Both evaluation and ratification regulations established on citizen participation that: “Any duly identified citizen
or duly represented public or private institution or body may inform the Council of the existence of facts that detract from
the dignity of the position, functional misconduct or lack of suitability for the position of the judge or prosecutor submitted
for ratification […] This information and documentation will be confidential.” Cf. Regulations for the Evaluation and
Ratification Process of Judges of the Judiciary and Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution, approved through Resolution 0432000-CNM and Resolution No. 241-2002-CNM, general provisions, section XI, supra.
141
Similarly, Mr. Cuya, in his statement given before the Court, stated that “It struck a blow that through the press,
radio, television, written press, the members of the Council of the Judiciary gave interviews, and you all there in the Brief
of Motions, Pleadings and Evidence have an interview with Dr. Flores Paredes, paediatrician, member of the Council, who
said that those not ratified were a group of officials who were in two problems, one, alleged acts of corruption or lack of
professional suitability. What does it mean? Either someone was corrupt, or someone was unprepared, unfit for the
position, so that affected me personally [...]”. For his part, Mr. Valenzuela Cerna in his statement stated that “[…] a judge
who in t[his] case, for example, the stigma that they did not ratify me because I have surely been a corrupt judge, in
short, negligent, or incapable […]” Statements by Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna given before
the Court at the public hearing held on March 8 and 9, 2021.
38