REPORT No. 79/14 PETITION 95-07 ADMISSIBILITY JULIO CASA NINA PERU AUGUST 15, 2014 I. SUMMARY 1. On February 6, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition submitted by Julio Casa Nina, (hereinafter, “the petitioner” or “the alleged victim”) alleging violations on the part of the Republic of Peru (hereinafter, “the State” or “the Peruvian State”) of Articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 11 (right to privacy), 24 (right to equal protection) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “The American Convention”). 2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as Provisional Deputy Prosecutor in 1998, a period in which must of the prosecutors in Peru were Provisional. He argues that he was subject to the Labor and Public Administration Career Act [Ley Laboral y de la Carrera Administrativa], and that he had not been subject to any administrative penalty in the discharging of his duties, however pursuant to resolution No. 0872003-MP-FN of January 21, 2003, he was removed from his post as Provisional Deputy Prosecutor of the Second Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of the Province of Huamanga, Ayacucho, Peru, without a cause. In this regard he argues that such removal violates Peruvian law which guarantees the permanence in the post of provisional prosecutors while there are no permanent prosecutors to replace them. 3. The State, on its part, alleges that the petitioner’s removal from his post was not a dismissal, rather a decision to end his appointment as a prosecutor, which is valid pursuant to the provisional nature of the post to which he was appointed, which in keeping with the applicable legal framework, does not give rise to more rights than those inherent to the post. 4. Without prejudging the merits of the complaint, after having analyzed the positions of the parties, and in compliance with the requirements provided for under Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission has decided to declare the case admissible for purposes of its review, based on alleged violations of Articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws) and 25 (right to judicial protection), in keeping with Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) of said Convention, and inadmissible for review based on alleged violations of Articles 11 (right to privacy) and 24 (right to equal protection). The Commission has further decided to notify the parties of the report and order its publication in the Annual Report of the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. On February 6, 2007, the Commission received the petition and registered it under No. 95-07. After undertaking a preliminary analysis, on July 22, 2011, the IACHR forwarded the State the pertinent parts of the petition in order for it to submit its observations within two months. On September 21, 2011, the IACHR received the State’s written observations. On June 4, 2012, the IACHR received written observations from the petitioner. On August 27, 2012, the State presented additional observations, and on April 13, 2013, the petitioner submitted additional information, which was forwarded to the State on June 26, 2013.