Alfredo Lagos del Campo argued that the Second Labor Court of Lima had not “adhered to the facts,” and “disregarded” his fundamental rights. He also alleged that there were irregularities during the processing of the motion for appeal, in particular, the failure to consider a brief he filed days prior to the judgment. The motion to vacate was dismissed on September 3, 199120 for failing to state one of the requisite grounds. 60. On October 21, 1991, the alleged victim filed a petition for a constitutional remedy [acción de amparo] against the decision on the motion for appeal.21 In his action, Mr. Lagos del Campo alleged violations of his rights to employment security, due process, and equality before the law, maintaining that the Second Labor Court of Lima handed down its decision on August 8, 1991, without processing or considering the brief he had filed to refute the company’s arguments. 61. While the appeal was pending, the government of Peru declared a “reorganization” of the Judiciary, which had serious consequences on the exercise of human rights in that country.22 Within the framework of these reforms, on August 3, 1992, the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court ruled the amparo petition inadmissible.23 The Court stated that, “The plaintiff’s petition does not describe any violation of his right to due process.” On August 26, 1992, the alleged victim filed a motion to vacate this judgment.24 The Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court registered the appeal under case file No. 181192, and in an order dated March 15, 1993,25 affirmed the inadmissibility of the amparo petition. The Chamber adopted the opinion of the Public Ministry, contained in its February 12, 1993 brief, recommending that the lower court judgment be upheld on the grounds that it “was a final judgment, and reviewing it would revive a closed case, thereby violating res judicata with regard to labor matters.”26 62. On March 30, 1993, Mr. Lagos del Campo sent an official letter to the Chief Justice of the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court requesting the review of the March 15, 1993 judgment. On April 28 and May 4, 1993, Mr. Lagos del Campo filed a motion for reconsideration asking for his case to be heard by the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court.27 Those petitions were not heard. [… continuation] 19 Annex 14. Motion to vacate filed by Mr. Alfredo Lagos del Campo with the Second Labor Court of Lima. Case File No. 839-91. September 2, 1991; Order issued by the Second Labor Court of Lima. Case File No. 839-91. September 3, 1991. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 20 Annex 14. Brief filed by Mr. Alfredo Lagos del Campo with the Second Labor Court of Lima. Case File No. 839-91. September 2, 1991; Order issued by the Second Labor Court of Lima. Case File No. 839-91. September 3, 1991. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 21 Annex 15. Petition for a constitutional remedy [amparo] filed by Mr. Alfredo Lagos del Campo with the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. Case File No. 2615-91. October 21, 1991. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 22 In its Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, 1993, the IACHR documented that on April 5, 1992, “Troops of the Security Forces, supported by tanks, occupied the Palace of Justice and the premises of the other institutions, and barred entry thereto. On April 6, the President of the Republic announced the removal of judges and justices: on April 9, Decree Law 25423 removed 13 justices from the Supreme Court; Decree Law 25422 removed the eight members from the Tribunal of Constitutional Guarantees;, and Decree Law 25424 removed members of the National and District Judiciary Councils. As for the Office of the Attorney General, its incumbent announced his resignation on April 7; that same day he was removed as Attorney General of the Nation and as Chairman of the National Judiciary Council. Dr. Nélida Colán was later appointed Attorney General of the Nation. On April 8, through Decree Laws 25419 and 25420, the Comptroller General of the Republic was removed and the Judicial Office and the Office of the Government Attorney were suspended for ten working days, leaving only examining judges and lower-ranking prosecutors in place. By Decree Law 25445, of April 23, 1992, 130 individuals were removed, among them magistrates on the superior courts, chief prosecutors, judges in the court districts, provincial prosecutors and minors' court judges in the districts of Lima and Callao.” The IACHR additionally observed that, “One measure that affects all citizens' ability to avail themselves of the remedies provided under the law is Decree Law 25433, which the Government enacted to amend the procedure and effects of the remedies of amparo and habeas corpus.” IACHR. Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.83. Doc. 31. March 12, 1993. Paras. 58 et seq. 23 Annex 16. Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. Decision of August 3, 1992. Case File No. 2615-9. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 24 Annex 17. Motion to vacate filed by Mr. Alfredo Lagos del Campo with the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. Case File No. 2615-91. August 26, 1992. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 25 Annex 18. Order of the Supreme Court of Peru. Case File No. 1811-92. March 15, 1993. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 26 Annex 19. Opinion of the Public Ministry submitted to the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court. Case File No. 1811-92. February 12, 1993. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 27 Annex 20. Brief filed with the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court. Case File No. 1811-92. April 28, 1993. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of July 23, 1998. 12