18 to the parliamentarians, the Ombudsman, the political parties, the representatives of the Catholic Church, human rights organizations and the public prosecutors. The fact that she was dismissed from her employment in Congress “cut short [her] career and [her] will to realize her full potential and advance professionally.” Since she did not have enough money, she sought other sources of income, but “finding herself without stable employment has been very hard and has prejudiced [her] health. […Moreover, since she does not have] health insurance, [she has] not been able to take proper care of [herself] and [her] physical condition is worsening.” The bank “took away” her house, because she was unable to continue making the monthly payments. “Believing that it was the best thing for [her] son,” she sent him to live with her sister, and the separation was “very hard.” Finding herself without work “affected [her] a great deal; the change in her life was very difficult [and her] health has been affected.” She “hope[s] for justice from the Inter-American Court” and asks that “it try and resolve [her] problems; […] that they are given what [they] have a right to, […and] that [their] sufferings are ended.” f) Luisa Chara Pacheco de Rivas, alleged victim Following her dismissal as a congressional employee, she resorted unsuccessfully to the administrative proceeding to demand reinstatement; she then filed a complaint before the courts, which reached the Constitutional Court. Since these measures were ineffective, she had recourse to the Inter-American Commission. When she found herself without employment, she had “to sell food to street vendors.” Subsequently, she went to live in Argentina “seeking better financial conditions [in order] to help maintain [her] children.” She “was unable to continue paying the university studies of [her] daughter[,…] who had to work to help the household.” She feels frustrated “because she was a good worker, a good secretary [and she] did [her] job well.” She feels that her “life project was disrupted [and that her] emotional state caused [her] to develop diabetes.” Her children have a “right to the health care and education” she has been unable to give them. Furthermore, she has not “been able to give [them …] a home where they can live safely, because [she] is unemployed.” Expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission g) Samuel Abad Yupanqui, expert in constitutional law The expert witness referred to body that called itself the “National Emergency and Reconstruction Government,” which acted “contrary to the Constitution and legislated by decree laws. […T]o return to the democratic institutional framework and, owing to international pressure, […] elections were called to choose a new Congress,” known as the Democratic Constituent Congress (CCD). From December 5 to 30, 1992, 748 decree laws were issued, one of which provide for the establishment of a commission to administer the patrimony of the Congress of the Republic, and to adopt “the necessary administrative measures and actions concerning personnel.” Decree 25640 stipulated that this reorganization commission would implement a streamlining process and also established the inadmissibility of