20 56. At that time, Law 24514 of 1986 regulated the right to job security and the procedure for the dismissal of workers.67 The law stipulated that serious offenses committed by the workers were a just cause for dismissal68 and established the following, inter alia, as serious offenses:69 (a) Unjustified failure to meet work obligations; repeated resistance to work-related orders of superiors and failure to observe the Internal Work and Industrial Safety Regulations duly approved by the administrative labor authority, which, in all cases, are serious offenses; […] (h) The perpetration of acts of violence, serious insubordination or serious verbal misconduct against the employer, its representatives, senior personnel, or co-workers, in the workplace, or outside this when the facts stem directly from the employment relationship. 57. Regarding the dismissal procedure, when a worker committed a serious infraction, the employer had to inform him in writing of the facts and the opening of an investigation.70 The worker, in the exercise of his right to defend himself, had six days to disprove the facts of which he was accused, because, if he did not do so, the employer would notify him of his dismissal and the date of termination of employment in a notarized letter; the employer would also communicate the decision to the administrative labor authority.71 The law stipulated that the worker could have recourse to the labor jurisdiction if he considered that the dismissal was not justified.72 The law expressly established that the burden of proof for the dismissal corresponded to the employer.73 If the proceedings were adjudicated in favor of the worker, he could opt to be reinstated or to terminate his contract, which would lead to the payment of the severance package and special compensation.74 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Law 24514. Law on the right to job security. June 4, 1986. Article 4.a. May be consulted at: http://www4.Congress.gob.pe/ntley/imagenes/Lawes/24514.pdf (evidence file, annex 9 to the Merits Report, ff. 33bis to 38bis). 67 Article 3 of the Decree-Law in force at the time of the facts established: “Article 3. The workers referred to in Article 2 can only be dismissed for good cause indicated in this law and duly verified.” 68 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Law 24514. Law on the right to job security. June 4, 1986. Article 5. May be consulted at: http://www4.Congress.gob.pe/ntley/imagenes/Lawes/24514.pdf (evidence file, annex 9 to the Merits Report, ff. 33bis to 38bis). 69 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Law 24514. Law on the right to job security. June 4, 1986. Article 6. “Immediately on becoming aware of or investigating the offense that gives rise to the dismissal, the employer shall communicate this situation to the worker concerned in writing. The employment relationship with a worker shall not be terminated without having previously offered him the possibility of defending himself against the charges against him unless the facts are so serious that the employer cannot be reasonable asked to grant him that possibility. In the exercise of the right of defense, the worker may be assisted by a labor union representative or by a lawyers, as he prefers.” 70 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Law 24514. Law on the right to job security. June 4, 1986. Article 7. “When the previous procedure has ended, as established in the preceding article, without the worker having disproved that facts that constitute the serious offense, the employer shall notify him of his dismissal through a justice of the peace, if there is no notary, indicating precisely the cause of the dismissal and the date of termination. This dismissal shall be communicated to the Administrative Labor Authority at the same time.” 71 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Law 24514. Law on the right to job security. June 4, 1986. Article 8. “The worker who considers that the dismissal was not justified or did not comply with the formal requirements of this law, may have recourse to the Labor Communities and Employment Jurisdiction requesting that it be declared unjustified and unfair. At the request of the worker concerned, during the hearing or following this procedure, without interrupting the effects of the proceedings, the judge may preventively order that the dismissal be suspended and the worker reinstated in his usual job when, based on the conduct of the worker and the characteristics of the act of which he is accused, there is a reasonable presumption that he has not committed a serious offense, or when the dismissal has not complied with the formalities indicated in this law.” 72 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Law 24514. Law on the right to job security. June 4, 1986. Article 11. “The action referred to in the previous articles shall, in general, abide by the procedure that governs actions on labor matters, that are processed before the Labor Communities and Employment Jurisdiction, with the characteristics established in this law. The Labor Communities and Employment Jurisdiction shall decide these proceedings within no more than four months. The burden of proof concerning the dismissal, in all cases, corresponds to the employer.” 73 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Law 24514. Law on the right to job security. June 4, 1986. Article 12. “When the decision declaring the dismissal unjustified or unfair has been delivered or an order given for this to be executed 74