REPORT Nº 55/08 PETITION 532-98 ADMISSIBILITY WORKERS DISMISSED FROM EMPRESA NACIONAL DE PUERTOS S.A. (ENAPU) PERU July 24, 2008 I. SUMMARY 1. On November 2, 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by the National Workers Federation of the Empresa Nacional de Puertos, S.A. [National Port Company] (ENAPU), (hereinafter “the petitioners”) on behalf of 25 dismissed workers 1 (hereinafter “the alleged victims”) against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “Peru” or “the State”) claiming that the 28 alleged victims had been laid off as part of the privatization of State-owned companies that was based on legislation that patently violated their constitutional rights. The petitioners alleged that the workers were collectively dismissed in a process that applied legal standards that violated the Constitution and prevented them from exercising their right to defense against the dismissal decision. 2. The petitioners argue that the State violated their rights to a fair trial, to freedom from ex post facto laws, to equal protection, and to judicial protection, established in Articles 8, 9, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), in accordance with the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights set forth in Article 1.1 and the duty to take domestic measures as stipulated in Article 2 of the Convention. With respect to admissibility requirements, the petitioners say they have exhausted all domestic judicial remedies but claimed that they did not obtain judicial protection from any of the courts to which they had recourse. The petitioners say that the State had recognized its responsibility for the alleged violations when it issued Law No. 27803, which was adopted to review collective dismissals at State-owned companies undergoing private investment promotion processes. They further state that, despite that acknowledgement, the benefits provided for under the said law did not meet the criteria for comprehensive reparations set forth under international jurisprudence. 3. The State claims that the case should be declared inadmissible, pursuant to Article 47(a) of the Convention, it indicates that the petition had been lodged without fulfilling the requirement to have first exhausted domestic remedies, set forth in Article 46(a) of the Convention. It argues that domestic judicial proceedings observed all due process standards and guarantees—guarantees also observed during the privatization of State-owned companies and in the program to reduce and streamline staffing at ENAPU, S.A. Also, the State alleges that after the democratic constitutional regime was restored in Peru, the State took internal steps to provide reparations to approximately 28,000 workers dismissed irregularly from 1990 to 2000. The State noted that several of the petitioners in the present case had accepted those benefits and that the others could as well. The State therefore says 1 The original petition involved 28 alleged victims. Through a note dated February 13, 2006, the petitioners informed the Commission that Mrs. Gloria Cahua Ríos, Mr. César Bravo Garvich, and Mr. Ernesto Yovera Álvarez were not interested in pursuing their complaint. 1