3 which was rejected, and on February 25, 1998, he filed an appeal with the Supreme Court’s Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law. 12. With regard to the alleged violation of the right to due process, the petitioner alleges that “procedural flaws and irregularities” existed in the proceeding carried out by the Second Labor Court, in the first amparo proceeding, and in the recurso de queja and the appeal seeking to have the decision set 3 aside. In particular, the petitioner indicates that the Second Labor Court handled his case very quickly, without adequately analyzing his arguments. The petitioner indicates that said court had not had sufficient evidence with which to make a judgment under the law, violating the principle of conclusive evidence. The petitioner alleges as a procedural irregularity the fact that the Second Labor Court had decided his case without having his pleading before it. In this regard, the petitioner indicated that on August 2, 1991, he submitted his pleading; that on August 8, 1991, the Second Labor Court issued a judgment in his case; and that on August 9, 1991 (that is, one day after the judgment), the Court responded to his pleading 4 document by informing the petitioner that he should “abide by” the previous day's judgment. 13. With respect to the alleged violation of the petitioner’s right to judicial protection, the petitioner alleges that the appeals he filed against the judgment of second instance (see above paragraph 11) were erroneously rejected. The petitioner questions the fact that the Supreme Court’s Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law ruled on an appeal filed the same day “that the case was heard,” which he considered to be a violation of due process and a denial of effective legal recourse. 14. In domestic jurisdiction, the petitioner denied having made the statements that were ascribed to him and based on which he was dismissed. However, in his petition to the IACHR, the petitioner limits himself to rejecting responsibility for the article and believes that, in any case, those 5 responsible would be the journalist or the media outlet that published the alleged interview. He further indicates that even if it were proved that the statements were made by the alleged victim, this would not 6 constitute the “serious offense” grounds warranting his dismissal, since—according to the petitioner—the insults or injuries established in Article 2.5 of the 1979 Constitution of Peru (currently Article 2.7) may not 7 refer to legal persons, but only to natural persons who have been individually named. According to the petitioner, this would affect the legality of the judgment in which he was convicted of insults allegedly 8 expressed against “the Directorate of the company.” The petitioner likewise believes that labor leaders always make use of their freedom of opinion “with high-sounding words directed toward public opinion in defense of the rights of those they represent” without this being considered grounds for dismissal. 15. The petitioner believed that his right to due process enshrined in Article 8 of the American Convention was violated in connection with Article 14.1 of the International Covenant on Civil 3 Petitioner's submission received at the IACHR on February 14, 2003. 4 The ruling states: "In response to this document: abide by the judgment issued on the eighth day of the current month." Annex "6c" of the petitioner's submission received at the IACHR on August 5, 1998. 5 Petitioner's initial submission, received at the IACHR on August 5, 1998. 6 Petitioner's submission received at the IACHR on June 2, 2003. It appears from the file that the law applied to dismiss the petitioner was Article 5(h) of Law 24.514, which regulates the Right to Stability in the Workplace. That law establishes that it is a serious offense "to incur in an act of violence, serious lack of discipline, or serious offense of word causing injury to the employer, its representatives, ranking personnel, or co-workers, within the workplace; or outside the workplace, when the facts stem directly from the work relationship...." 7 8 Petitioner's submission received at the IACHR on August 5, 1998. Petitioner's submission received at the IACHR on February 14, 2003. The article published in La Razón (June 1989), in which Mr. Lagos del Campo is interviewed and for which he was dismissed from his job, includes quotes attributed therein to the petitioner in which he allegedly indicates, among other considerations, that "the Directorate of the company has used and uses blackmail and coercion on the commoners, managing to pressure a particular group of workers to participate in the elections, under the threat of dismissal"..."the company management convened three members, and in the office of...management convened the elections...making a mockery of any legal provisions...." The article also attributes comments to the petitioner in which he denounces management pressure on employees, as well as an "understanding" between State institutions and the company to the detriment of the workers.