61. The 39 alleged victims underwent the evaluation and, on October 10, 1996, the scores were published on lists posted on the walls of the workplace, indicating that they had not passed the test.56 On October 15, 1996, the alleged victims sent a formal letter to the Education Minister at the time, requesting an official detailed breakdown of the scores stemming from the evaluation.57 62. On October 19, 1996, Ministerial Resolution No. 245-96-ED was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano. In its first article, the Resolution ordered that various employees of the Ministry, including the alleged victims, be “dismissed as of November 1, 1996 because of overstaffing.”58 The alleged victims filed an administrative appeal against the above-mentioned resolution and, on February 14, 1997, by means of Supreme Resolution No 003-97-ED, the Ministry of Education ruled that the appeal was without merits.59 63. On May 13, 1997, the alleged victims filed suit for constitutional relief (amparo) with the Specialized Public Law Judge in Lima requesting the repeal of the laws that led to their dismissal, their immediate and unconditional reinstatement in the jobs, and payment of the benefits that they had stopped receiving.60 64. On September 30, 1997, the First Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law of Lima ruled that the suit was without merits. The Court based its ruling essentially on three facts: (i) the evaluation was conducted on the basis of orders issued in Decree Law 26093; (ii) the complainants underwent the evaluation, which indicated that they did not challenge, at that time, the validity of the law which was the subject of the suit; and (iii) it was not appropriate to consider the characteristics of the performance evaluation process in an amparo suit because those proceedings did not offer a suitable evidentiary stage for that purpose.61 65. On October 30, 1997, the complainants appealed the ruling and, on March 19, 1998, the Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law upheld the judgment of the first instance. The Corporate Court agreed entirely with the arguments put forth by the judge of the first instance.62 66. On April 22, 1998, the alleged victims filed a special appeal.63 On November 19, 1999, the Constitutional Court upheld the ruling of the Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law.64 The Court based its decision on the fact that “it is evident from the proceedings that the complainants voluntarily submitted to the employee evaluation process; nevertheless, upon failing to obtain the score needed to pass, 56 Annex 34. Official letter signed by Manuel Paiba Cossios and others, addressed to Domingo Palermo Cabrejos, Minister of Education, San Borja, October 15, 1996. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 2000. 57 Annex 34. Official letter signed by Manuel Paiba Cossios and others, addressed to Domingo Palermo Cabrejos, Minister of Education, San Borja, October 15, 1996. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 2000. 58 Annex 35. Ministerial Resolution No. 245-96-ED. Cesan personal del ministerio por causal de excedencia, Lima, October 19, 1996. Official Gazette El Peruano, p. 143644. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 2000. 59 Annex 36. Supreme Resolution No. 003-97-ED. Lima, February 14, 1997. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 2000. 60 Annex 37. Brief of May 13, 1997. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 2000. 61 Annex 38. First Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law of Lima, judgment of September 30, 1997. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 2000. 62 Annex 39. Judgment of the Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law of March 19, 1998. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 2000. 63 2000. Annex 40. Brief by Manuel Paiba and others of April 21, 1998. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 64 Annex 41. Constitutional Court judgment of November 19, 1999. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 2000. 12