I. INTRODUCTION 1. On September 7, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition filed by the Human Rights Legal Action Center (Centro para Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos—CALDH) (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging the international responsibility of the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter “the state,” “the Guatemalan state,” or “Guatemala”) to the detriment of the former employees of the Judiciary for alleged dismissal because they exercised their right to strike. 2. The Commission approved admissibility report No. 78/03 of October 22, 2003. 1 On October 27, 2003, the Commission notified said report to the parties and indicated it was available to reach a friendly solution, but the conditions to initiate said proceeding were not met. The parties benefited from the regulatory delays to submit their additional observations on the merits. All the information that was received was duly forwarded to both parties. II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 3. The petitioners indicated that, in August 1992, the Judiciary Workers Union (Sindicato de Trabajadores del Organismo Judicial—STOJ) (hereinafter the “STOJ” or “the Union”) and the Judiciary (Organismo Judicial, hereinafter “the OJ”) signed a Collective Working Conditions Agreement. They indicated that the two-year agreement came into force in November 1992. They stated that, after this period had elapsed, on October 18, 1994, the petitioners denounced the above-mentioned agreement to the General Labor Inspectorate for the purpose of negotiating a new working instrument. 4. They argued that after unproductive bargaining with the Judiciary to agree on a new collective agreement, according to the law, it filed an “economic and social dispute” with the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court, which takes over when the parties have not reached an agreement on the terms of the collective working conditions agreement and is aimed at discussing the case directly, setting a time-limit of 30 days for bargaining. On November 21, 1994, said Court ruled that the petition was admissible. In addition, the petitioners subsequently indicated that the Judiciary, represented by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, filed various challenges for the purpose of preventing the collective dispute from being pursued. 5. They pointed out that, on November 28, 1995, the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court ruled that direct proceedings had been exhausted and, therefore, on December 12, 1995, a Court of Conciliation was established, a procedure required by law when direct recourse is unsuccessful. They indicated that, on February 14, 1996, the Court of Conciliation made recommendations to the parties, suggesting certain modifications to the new draft of the proposed agreement. 6. They indicated that, on February 15, 1996, the Court ruled that the conciliation proceeding had concluded, because the parties had failed to agree to follow the recommendations from the proposals made by said court. 7. They argued that, on February 16, 1886, the Union submitted a brief to the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court so that the General Labor Inspectorate would proceed to ascertain, by counting, if the employees who started the labor dispute accounted for at least two thirds of the Judiciary in order to declare that the strike was lawful as required by the Labor Code. 8. They pointed out that subsequently the Judiciary filed a brief indicating that the only way to settle the dispute was by means of arbitration. IACHR. Report No. 78/03. Petition 0453/00. Former Employees of the Judiciary, Guatemala. October 22, 2003. In this report the Commission declared that the petition was admissible in connection with Articles 8, 16, 24, 25, 1(1), and 2 of the American Convention. 1

Select target paragraph3