Resolution No. 234-97-EF/10 because it violated their right to due process of law and to their reinstatement in the workplace.34 51. On July 21, 1999, the First Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law ruled the petition was inadmissible because the dismissals did comply with Decree Law No. 26093.35 After an appeal was filed, on December 13, 1999, the Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law upheld the judgment issued and ruled that the suit for constitutional relief (amparo) was inadmissible.36 52. On September 6, 2001, in response to a special appeal that was filed, the Constitutional Court ruled that the suit for constitutional relief (amparo) for the benefit of Ms. Mirtha Ruiz (who is not an alleged victim in the present case but who is indeed part of the 20 persons who, in accordance with paragraph 50, did file suit for constitutional relief) was with merits and ordered that she be reinstated because, at the time of the performance evaluations, she was disabled.37 Regarding the other persons, the remedy that was filed was without merits. The Constitutional Court indicated that the dismissal took place in line with the provisions of Decree Law No. 26093.38 53. In addition to the suit for constitutional relief (amparo), on October 2, 2001, 16 persons, including some of the alleged victims, filed a claim for administrative dispute proceedings in labor affairs against the MEF with the Labor Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice.39 They requested that Ministerial Resolution No. 234-97-EF/10 be declared null and void because it had violated the right to due process of law and reinstatement into the workplace.40 The petitioners alleged that, on October 5, 2001, the Labor Chamber ruled that it was inadmissible because it had been filed past the time-limits stipulated in Article 81 of the Law on Labor Proceedings, which requires the above-mentioned claim to be filed within three months after the resolution being challenged is notified.41 3. Dismissals by Petroperú 54. On January 3, 1996, Supreme Decree No. 072-95-PCM was adopted, authorizing Petroperú to implement a downsizing plan on the basis of Decree Law No. 26120.42 55. On January 30, 1996, the Consolidated Oil Employees Union of Peru (Sindicato Único de Trabajadores de Petróleos del Perú), of which 84 of the alleged victims were members, filed a communication with the head of the Regional Labor Office of Talara, reporting the irregularities of the downsizing process which was being conducted on the basis of the legislation that had been adopted.43 The petitioners allege that they did not receive any response.44 34 Annex 16. Brief of March 23, 1998. Annex 17 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. Annex 17. Ruling No. 16 of the First Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law of July 21, 1999. Annex 18 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 35 36 Annex 18. Brief of the Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law of December 13, 1999. Annex 21 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 37 Annex 19. Constitutional Court judgment of January 29, 2001. Annex 21 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 38 Annex 19. Constitutional Court judgment of January 29, 2001. Annex 21 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 39 Annex 20. Brief of October 1, 2001. Annex 22 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 40 Annex 20. Brief of October 1, 2001. Annex 22 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 41 Annex 21. Petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 42 Annex 22. Supreme Decree 072-95-PCM. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of February 19, 1996. 43 Annex 23. Brief of January 30, 1996. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of February 19, 1996. 44 Annex 24. Petitioners’ communication of February 19, 1996. 10