II.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

A.

Petitioners

6.
They indicated that they were judges or prosecutors in Peru and that from 2000, the National
Council of the Magistracy (hereinafter “the NCM”) subjected them to the assessment and ratification proceeding
for judges and prosecutors, included in Articles 154, subparagraph 2 of the Peruvian Political Constitution, and
that it should be carried out every seven years, and it culminated in their non-ratification, as well as the
prohibition for them to return to the Judicial Branch and the Public Ministry.
7.
Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy made reference to the fact that he had been Specialized Civil Head Judge
in the Judicial District of Lima since 1994. He indicated that he was summoned for judges’ assessment and
ratification in 2001, in whose framework he attended a personal interview before the NCM and he was not
asked about his work performance but about his private life, family, sexual preferences, and hobbies. He added
that, due to the unmotivated resolution of November 20, 2002, his appointment was annulled and his judge
capacity was canceled. Moreover, he was prohibited from returning to the Judicial Branch and the Public
Ministry. He indicated that the whole assessment and ratification proceeding was secret. He expressed that the
assessment and ratification proceeding was carried out in transition context during the dictatorial regime of Former
President Alberto Fujimori, under the direct control of the NCM by the Judicial Branch.
8.
Furthermore, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Silvana Rodriguez Ricse said that they
were prosecutors in Peru. Mr. Díaz Alvarado indicated that he entered the Judicial Branch as Adjunct Provincial
Prosecutor in 1989, in his capacity as Head in the province of Huancayo, department of Junín. He indicated that
he was summoned for an interview before the National Council of the Magistracy. During the said interview, he
said that he was not charged; however, one councilor questioned him about the criminal complaint the
petitioner filed against the former dean of the Bar Association of Junín. He indicated that his appointment was
annulled and his prosecutor capacity was canceled through the resolution of July 13, 2001, when he was the
Provincial prosecutor of Aggravated Offenses and Smuggling in Huancayo.
9.
In addition, Ms. Rodríguez Ricse indicated that she entered the Public Ministry as Law
Technician II on March 31, 1982, and she was later appointed as Provisional Adjunct Provincial Prosecutor of
Yauli on March 7, 1984. She indicated that she was never summoned for an interview before the National
Council of the Magistracy; however, her appointment was annulled and his prosecutor capacity was canceled
through the resolution of July 13, 2001, when she was the Provisional Provincial Prosecutor of the Third
Criminal Provincial Public Prosecutor's Office.
10.

The three of them indicated that the appeal of relief was declared contrary to law.

11.
Mr. Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna indicated that he started his judicial career as Judge
of the Third Magistrate's Court in Surco y Surquillo, on January 10, 1985, under the Peruvian Political
Constitution of 1979, which on its Article 242, paragraph 2, insures his length of service until the age of 70, as
well as his tenure, while his conduct and aptitude incumbent on the role were assessed. He added that, even
though his career was regulated by the Constitution of 1979, the NCM summoned him for an assessment and
ratification proceeding, retrospectively enforcing the Constitution of 1993, which included the assessment and
ratification proceeding for judges and magistrates. He indicated that, due to the said situation, he filed for an
appeal of relief on June 20, 2002 against his summons, which was rejected. He explained that he did not
consider the proceeding as applicable to him, so he did not show up. In spite of this, the NCM annulled his
appointment.
12.
As regards the law, the alleged victims claimed violations of the freedom from ex post facto
laws principle, right to a fair trial, legal protection, political rights, and the duty to adopt domestic law
provisions.
13.
Regarding the freedom from ex post facto laws principle, petitioner Cuya Lavy indicated
that the said right was violated, since Article 146, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Constitution of 1993 insured the
2

Select target paragraph3