51. On September 19, 1985, Mrs. Moya Solís filed an appeal for nullity against the decision of the Third Civil Chamber of Lima, arguing that “it intended to declare an Administrative Order immovable as if it had the character of res judicata”.32 52. On January 17, 1986, the Public Prosecutor indicated that the first and second instance judgments had been issued without having Mrs. Moya Solís’ ratifications file in view, so it could not be established whether the Labor Court engaged in irregularities or not. The Public Prosecutor considered it appropriate to declare the Order of September 2, 1985, null and void, and that of June 14, 1985, groundless, and requested that a new ruling be issued.33 53. On August 4, 1986, the Supreme Court found the decision of September 2, 1985 null and void and the judgment of June 14, 1985 non-subsistent. The decision orders that “the judge of the case issues a new ruling, having the ratifications file in view”.34 C.3 Second appeal for amparo 54. After the decision on the annulment appeal, the presumed victim asked on several occasions that the Sixteenth Civil Court of Lima request her ratifications file from the Labor Court. Said court submitted two requests in this regard, without any response recorded on the file.35 55. In June 1995, the 33rd Civil Court of Lima also requested the ratifications file.36 In response, the Administrative Delegate of the Chambers and Courts indicated that, after searching the archives, no file had been found on the matter requested.37 56. On December 30, 1996, the Sixteenth Civil Court of Lima issued a new ruling in relation to the amparo action. It concluded that Mrs. Moya Solís had resorted to the amparo action to question the Order that declared her appeal for review of non-ratification unfounded, not the Agreement of the Full Chamber Session of the Labor Court in which her non-ratification was agreed and that, when said Order was issued, no constitutional right was violated or infringed. Due to the foregoing, it found the amparo action filed by Mrs. Moya Solís unfounded.38 57. On May 19, 1997, Mrs. Moya Solís appealed the ruling of December 30, 1996, arguing that she had not been aware of the Agreement in which it was decided not to ratify her and that the ratification file had not been found.39 Cf. Appeal for annulment filed before the Third Civil Chamber of Lima by Norka Moya Solís on September 17, 1985 (evidence file, folio 36). 32 Cf. Opinion sent by the Public Ministry to the President of the Second Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court on January 17, 1986 (evidence file, folios 39 to 40). 33 34 Cf. Decision of August 4, 1986 (evidence file, folio 43). 35 Cf. Official letter sent by the Judge of the Sixteenth Civil Court of Lima to the President of the Superior Court of Lima on November 27, 1986 (evidence file, folio 57) and Official Letter No. 1195-84 sent by the Judge of the Sixteenth Civil Court Lima to the President of the Labor Court on March 13, 1987 (evidence file, folio 46). See also: Official letters sent on different dates by Mrs. Moya Solís requesting that the file of ratifications be sent to the 16th Civil Court of Lima (evidence file, folios 47 to 49) 36 Cf. Official letter sent by the Specialized Civil Judge of the 33rd Civil Court of the Judicial District of Lima to the President of the Superior Court of Lima on June 22, 1995 (evidence file, folio 63) 37 Cf. Official Letter No. 076-DA-SYJTL sent by the Administrative Delegate of the Labor Chambers and Courts of Lima to the President of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on March 4, 1996 (evidence file, folio 65). 38 Cf. Decision of the Sixteenth Specialized Civil Court in Lima of December 30, 1996 (evidence file, folios 68 and 69). 39 Cf. Appeal filed by Mrs. Norka Moya Solís before the Sixteenth Specialized Civil Court of Lima on May 19, 1997 (evidence file, folios 72 to 73). 15