24 1997, Mr. Lagos del Campo repeated this request because he had not received an answer. 91 On June 24, 1997, the Third Specialized Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, pursuant to article 298 of the 1979 Constitution,92 in force at the date of the application for amparo, declared the request inadmissible on the grounds that Mr. Lagos del Campo should have filed a request for cassation based on the denial of the amparo application within 15 days of receiving notice of that decision and before the corresponding court, the Court of Constitutional Guarantees.93 69. On July 18, 1997, Mr. Lagos del Campo filed an appeal94 before the Third Specialized Civil Chamber of the Superior Court, asserting that the Court of Constitutional Guarantees had been placed in “recess by the Government of national reconstruction and pacification” for nearly four years, and he had therefore chosen to file motions for review of judgment before the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice that had never been decided. On July 25, 1997, the Third Specialized Civil Chamber of the Superior Court declared the appeal inadmissible, because an appeal against the decision of June 24, 1997, was not established in the laws of Peru.95 70. On August 19, 1997, Mr. Lago del Campo filed a request for review of the appeal that had been denied96 before the Third Specialized Civil Chamber of the Superior Court, requesting that his application for amparo to be heard in final instance by the Constitutional Court. On October 2, 1997, Mr. Lagos del Campo submitted the request for review of the appeal that had been denied to the President of the Constitutional Court. On November 27, 1997, the Social and Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided complaint 447-97, declaring it inadmissible on the grounds that, by law, judgments issued by a higher court in second instance must be contested by an action for annulment rather than an appeal.97 In view of this decision, Mr. Lagos del Campo requested the President of the Constitutional Court to correct and explain this decision on February 25, 1998, but without obtaining any answer.98 of the Constitution which establish: Article 2. Fundamental human rights. Everyone has a right to: 2. Equality before the law. No one may be discriminated against for reasons of origin, race, sex, language, religion, opinion, economic status, or any other condition. Article 202. Attributes of the Constitutional Court. It corresponds to the Constitutional Court: 2. To hear, in final instance, the decisions denying habeas corpus, amparo, habeas data, and mandamus (evidence file, annex 21 to the Merits Report, ff. 77 and 78). Cf. Request addressed to the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. File No. 2615-91. January 13, 1997 (evidence file, annex 21 to the Merits Report, ff. 79 and 80). 91 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Constitution of Peru, July 12, 1979. Article 298. The Court of Constitutional Guarantees has jurisdiction throughout the territory of the Republic. It has jurisdiction: 1. To declare, at the request of a party, the partial or total unconstitutionality of laws, legislative decrees, general regional laws and municipal by-laws that violate the Constitution in form or in content, and 2. To hear in cassation decisions rejecting applications for habeas corpus and amparo that have exhausted the court system. Article 295. The application for amparo protects rights recognized in the Constitution that may have been violated or threatened by any authority, official or individual. The application for amparo follows the same procedure as the application for habeas corpus in cases in which it is applicable. 92 Cf. Third Specialized Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima. File. No. 2625-91. Decision of June 24, 1997. (evidence file, annex 23 to the Merits Report, f. 82). 93 94 Cf. Appeal filed by Mr. Lagos del Campo before the Third Specialized Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. A.A.2615-91, July 18, 1997 (evidence file, annex 24 to the Merits Report, ff. 85 and 86). Cf. Third Specialized Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima. File. No. 839-97. Ruling of July 25, 1997. (evidence file, annex 25 to the Merits Report, f. 88). 95 Article 403 of the New Code of Civil Procedure in force at the time of the facts established the following: “The complaint shall be filed before the court that is superior to the one that denied the appeal or granted it with an effect other than that requested, or before the court of cassation in the corresponding case.” 96 Cf. Social and Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Complaint 447-97 (evidence file annex 28 to the Merits Report, f. 97). 97 Cf. Complaint filed before the Social and Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. File No 839-97. A.A. 2615-91 (evidence file annex 29 to the Merits Report, ff. 99 to 101). 98