REPORT No. 159/18
CASE 12,993
DECEMBER 7, 2018



Between 2003 and 2008, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received four petitions submitted by Luis Cuya Lavy,
Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna (hereinafter
“the petitioners”), in which they allege the international responsibility of the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the
Peruvian State,” “the State,” or “Peru”), to their detriment.
The Commission approved the admissibility report No. 19/15 on March 24, 2015.2 On April
13, 2015, the Commission informed the parties about the said report and was made available in order to attain
a friendly settlement, even though the conditions for the commencement of the said proceeding were not met.
The parties had the statutory terms to submit their additional observations about the merits. All of the received
information was duly transferred between the parties.
The petitioners alleged that between 2001 and 2002, the State summoned them, in their
capacity as judges and prosecutors, for an assessment and ratification proceeding, pursuant to the Political
Constitution of 1993. In this document, unmotivated resolutions were passed, which were unchallengeable in
legal and administrative courts, and they implied the prohibition to return to the Judicial Branch and the Public
Ministry, which brought about violations of different rights protected by the American Convention.
The State indicated that the judges and prosecutors’ assessment proceeding has the aim of
strengthening legal independence, through the assessment of judges and prosecutors by an autonomous body,
such as the National Council of the Magistracy. The State acknowledged the absence of motivation in the
decisions that brought about the alleged victims’ dismissal; however, it alleged that it did not violate the
lawfulness principle, political rights, and the right to legal protection, or its duty to adopt domestic law
provisions. It indicated that, even though the legal framework established the impossibility of challenging the
National Council of the Magistracy’s resolutions under assessment and ratification, the appeal of relief was
Based on the findings of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the State
was responsible for violating Articles 8.1, 8.2 b), 8.2 c), 8.2 h) (right to a fair trial), 9 (lawfulness principle), 23.1
c) (political rights), and 25.1 (legal protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
American Convention” or “the Convention”), in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of
the said document. The Commission issued the respective recommendations.

Pursuant to Article 17.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Francisco José Eguiguren Praeli, of Peruvian nationality,
did not participate in the debate of the present case’s decision.
2 IACHR. Report No. 19/15. Petition 320-03 and others. Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy and others Peru. March 24, 2015. In said report, the IACHR
declared the admissibility of the claims related to Articles 8, 9, 23, and 25 and related to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American, and declared
the inadmissibility of the claims related to Articles 5, 11, 24, and 26 of the said document.


Select target paragraph3