without cause by an executive committee of the magistracy composed of individuals with close ties to the government of the day. It also mentioned that three justices of the Constitutional Court had been dismissed by the Congress of the Republic on May 29, 1997, after returning a decision denying an action for constitutional relief whose purpose was to enable the then-president, Alberto Fujimori, to stand for reelection as president a second time. On that occasion, the IACHR said that the permanent interference of other powers of the state in the judiciary eroded the right of the citizenry to adequate administration of justice in Peru.120 106. The Commission highlights that the cases examined in this report were framed within the context of the collective dismissals. The proven facts show that in all four cases the alleged victims were dismissed as part of streamlining processes carried out by the public entities to which they belonged, all within the aegis of the general legal framework introduced by the then-government for that purpose. 107. Therefore, despite the fact that in the cases examined in this report there was no there was no express prohibition filed suits for constitutional relief (amparo), the precedent of the Court in the case Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru is fully applicable in relation to the structural problems facing the judiciary at that time, including the lack of independence and impartiality of the highest court charged with protection of constitutional rights, as well as the general climate of inefficiency of the judiciary described by the Court itself in those terms. 108. Taking into account that the Court established that the minimum institutional foundations for the dismissed workers from that time were not given to have a judicial response with the guarantees established by the Convention, the Commission notes that the results of constitutional relief (amparo) filed by the alleged victims in the four cases confirm the ineffectiveness of such mechanism. Indeed, an evaluation of the motivation given by the authorities who resolved the constitutional relief (amparo) shows that they simply stated, without substantive analysis, that the dismissals were in accordance with the domestic legislation of that time. Even in the only case in which a lower court made a reference to the constitutionality of the dismissals, such reference did not have a minimum motivation that could allow to understand that a substantive analysis of the collective dismissals was made according to the constitutional rights of the alleged victims. 109. In that sense, because the decisions in the suits cited as exclusive grounds the existence of the legislation at the time –when the purpose of the amparo suits was to obtain a response from the courts as to whether or not the dismissals under the decrees enacted by the government violated constitutional guarantees- the dismissed workers of the four cases were denied a judicial remedy that established whether their dismissals were arbitrary, in violation of their constitutional guarantees. The Commission also highlights that the workers were also not informed what recourse they should invoke, apart from constitutional relief, to obtain a ruling from a judicial authority. On the contrary, some groups also attempted a contentious administrative action with similarly unfavorable results. 110. The foregoing confirms that the 25 workers dismissed from Enapu, the 15 workers dismissed from the MEF, the 39 workers dismissed from the Minedu, and the 84 workers dismissed from Petroperú, were victims of the climate that existed at the time of the events, characterized by ineffectiveness and lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the judiciary in responding to collective dismissals such as those that gave rise to this report. 111. Based on the above, the IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for violation of rights protected in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligations envisaged in Articles 1.1 and 2 of that instrument, to the detriment of the persons listed in Annex 1 to this report. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 120 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Peru2000en/TOC.htm of 22 Human Rights in Peru, June 2, 2000. Available at: