result, since this contingency has been discredited, the present petition for guarantee is without merits.23 2. Dismissals by MEF 45. On December 28, 1992, Decree Law No. 26093 was issued, providing for the following: Article 1. The heads of the various Ministries and Decentralized Public Institutions must conduct half-yearly staff performance evaluations in accordance with the regulations that are established for said purpose. (...) Article 2. The staff members who, on the basis of the provisions of the preceding article, do not qualify, can be dismissed because of overstaffing.24 46. On July 3, 1997, Ministerial Resolution No. 123-97-EF was issued, adopting the Staff Performance Evaluation System of the Ministry of Economy and Finance.25 In that year, the alleged victims underwent the corresponding evaluation and the MEF decided to include them in a training program during the second semester of 1997 in the Peruvian Business Administration Institute (Instituto Peruano de Administración de Empresa—IPAE).26 47. The petitioners passed the academic evaluation carried out by the IPAE.27 On that same day, the MEF notified the alleged victims of Circular No. 023-97-EF/43.01 indicating that they had to undergo a “psycho-technical evaluation.”28 48. On December 31, 1997, the alleged victims were notified, on the basis of Circular No. 06597/EF/43.40, that they had not obtained the minimum score averaging both the psychological evaluation and the tests previously taken.29 The Circular ordered that, if the evaluation was not passed, then the provisions of Article 2 of Decree Law No. No. 26093 would be implemented, that is, dismissal because of overstaffing.30 49. The petitioners alleged that, on January 8, 1998, the alleged victims were notified of Ministerial Resolution No. 234-97-EF/10 of December 31, 1998.31 In said resolution, the alleged victims were dismissed “because of overstaffing” as they had not obtained the minimum passing score in the half-yearly evaluation process.32 50. On March 23, 1998, 29 former employees, including the 15 alleged victims, filed suit for constitutional relief (amparo) against the Ministry of Economy and Finance with the First Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law of Lima.33 They requested nonobservance of Ministerial 23 Annex 8. Constitutional Court judgment, March 3, 1998. Annex 1-K to the petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 24 Annex 9. Decree-Law No. 26093. Available at: http://peru.justia.com/federales/decretos-leyes/26093-dec-28-1992/gdoc/ 25 Annex 10. Ministerial Resolution No. 123-97-EF. Annex 5 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 26 Annex 11. Letter No. 01473-97-EF/43.40, of August 6, 1997. Annex 8 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 27 Annex 12. IPAE academic record letters. Annex 9 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 28 Annex 13. Circular No. 023-97-EF/43.01. Annex 10 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 29 Annex 14. Circular No. 065-97-EF/43.40. Annex 13 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 30 Annex 14. Circular No. 065-97-EF/43.40. Annex 13 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. Annex 15. Ministerial Resolution No. 234-97-EF/10, of December 31, 1998. Annex 16 to the petitioners’ communication of April 16, 2004. 31 32 Annex 15. Ministerial Resolution No. 234-97-EF/10, of December 31, 1998. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of April 16, 2004. 33 Annex 16. Brief of March 23, 1998. Annex 17 to the petitioners’ communication of March 4, 2002. 9