23 Judiciary.84 In the context of these reforms, on August 3, 1992 the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima ruled that the application for amparo was inadmissible.85 65. On August 26, 1992, Mr. Lagos del Campo filed an appeal for annulment before the President of the Fifth Civil Chamber of Lima, against the judgment delivered by the Fifth Civil Chamber of Lima;86 however, the President of the Fifth Civil Chamber did not reply. 66. Consequently, on March 10, 1993, Mr. Lagos del Campo filed a brief before the President of the Social and Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court in which he indicated that he “respectfully request[ed] that the Court declare the nullity of the judgment, which should be amended, and declare the application for amparo admissible.”87 The Social and Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in a decision of March 15, 1993, declared that the request for nullity against the judgment of August 8, 1992, was not admissible.88 67. On April 28, 1993, Mr. Lagos del Campo filed a motion for reconsideration of the ruling that declared the request for nullity inadmissible before the President of the Social and Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court.89 The request was not admitted. 3. Application for amparo before the Constitutional Court 68. On July 26, 1996, and with the inauguration of the Constitutional Court of Peru, Mr. Lagos del Campo filed a brief before the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court requesting that his application for amparo be reopened and referred to the Constitutional Court. 90 On January 14, Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Para. 89.2 “On April 5, 1992, President Fujimori broadcast the “Manifesto to the Nation” in which he stated, inter alia, that he considered that he had “the responsibility to assume an exceptional approach to try and accelerate the process of […] national reconstruction and ha[d] therefore, […] decide[d] […] to temporarily dissolve the Congress of the Republic[, …] to modernize the public administration, and to reorganize the Judiciary completely.” 84 Cf. Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. Decision of August 3, 1992. File. 2615-9 (evidence file, annex 16 to the Merits Report, ff. 63 and 64). The Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima stated that the grounds for the application before the court referred to the ineffectiveness of the judicial decision; also, that the brief mentioned by Mr. Lagos, which had been processed after the judgment, corresponded only to arguments, rather than to evidentiary elements; that, consequently, it did find that his right to due process – which could be remedied by means of the amparo – had been violated and concluded that the application for amparo was inadmissible. 85 Cf. Appeal for annulment filed by Mr. Lagos del Campo before the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. File. No. 2615-91. August 26, 1992 (evidence file, annex 17 to the Merits Report, f. 66). In this motion, Mr. Lagos del Campo requested that the court admit his application for annulment and order that the case be raised to the Supreme Court. 86 Cf. Appeal for annulment and order of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic. File 1811-92. March 15, 1993 (evidence file annex 18 to the Merits Report, f. 67). In this motion, Mr. Lagos argued that his constitutional right to legitimate defense and due process had been violated because the brief he had filed before the Second Labor Court, which had been received on August 1, 1991, had not been processed promptly. 87 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice. File No 1811-92; the Chamber indicated “that, based on the decision of the [Supreme Administrative Contentious] Prosecutor; [taking into account] the grounds he had outlined, it declare[d] that nullity was not admissible.” The said decision of the Prosecutor indicated that “judicial decisions of the Labor and Labor Communities Jurisdiction that have been determined and are enforceable have the authority of res judicata”; therefore, to review such a decision would entail reviving a defunct proceeding and, consequently, an infringement of res judicata. He added that “when this decision has been adopted or is enforceable, it shall be published in the Official Gazette, “El Peruano,” within the time frame established in article 42 of Law 23506.” Cited from the decision. Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Habeas Corpus and Amparo Act. Law 23506. Article 42. It shall be compulsory to publish all final decisions on applications for habeas corpus and amparo that have been adopted and are enforceable in the Official Gazette, “El Peruano.” 88 Cf. Motion addressed to the Social and Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. File No. 1811-92. April 28, 1993. Annexes to the communication of the petitioners dated July 23, 1998 (evidence file, annex 20 to the Merits Report, f. 75). 89 Cf. Request addressed to the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. File No. 2615-91. July 26, 1996 (evidence file, annex 21 to the Merits Report, f. 77). To substantiate his request, Mr. Lagos cited articles 2.2 and 202.2 90