|
|
|
PETITION 711-01 ET AL.[1] FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT MIGUEL GRIMALDO CASTAÑEDA SÁNCHEZ ET AL.[2] PERU March 15, 2006
I. SUMMARY
1. Since 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the IACHR” or “the Commission” has been receiving petitions lodged by magistrates and prosecutors who were dismissed from office after the National Council of the Magistracy [Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura] (hereinafter the “CNM”) chose not to reconfirm them. The petitioners claim that the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “Peru,” “the State,” or “the Peruvian State”) violated their right to a fair trial, to protection of their honor, their political rights, their right to equal protection before the law, and their right to judicial protection, all recognized in Articles 8, 11, 23, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) respectively, in accordance with Article 1.1 of that international instrument. The violations alleged are related to irregularities committed by the CNM in its decision not to reconfirm the petitioners in their offices.
2. In general terms, the petitioners claim, in their respective complaints, that the resolution or act through which they were not reconfirmed did not state a reasoned basis for the decision, in accordance with provisions of the Constitution. The petitioners assert that under Article 139° (5) of the Constitution, all judicial decisions must include a written statement articulating the reasons for its decision. They also claim a violation of their right to a defense and to the principle that judges cannot be removed. The petitioners request reinstatement to their positions, a new evaluation and reconfirmation process, and moral and material compensation. Finally, they maintain that there is no domestic remedy for the judicial review of the decisions of the National Council of the Magistracy.[3] In light of the foregoing, they affirm that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a is applicable.
3. Although the Constitution, the Organic Law of the National Council of the Magistracy, and the Regulations for the Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors (Res. N° 043-2000-CNM y 241-2002-CNM) do not allow legal or administrative appeals of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy, several petitioners filed actions for amparo in the domestic venue. As observed in the section on facts and processing, while some of these petitioners presented their respective complaints before the IACHR prior to a definitive ruling on the suit filed, in the framework of the friendly settlement proceeding, those actions for amparo were resolved by the Constitutional Court. In this regard, the petitioners who have pursued actions for amparo can be classified in two groups: magistrates and prosecutors who have received a judgment from the Constitutional Court declaring the suit unfounded, while upholding their right to stand for a judicial posting in the future; and those magistrates and prosecutors who have received a Constitutional Court judgment declaring the respective CNM ruling without relevance and ordering that a personal interview be conducted.
4. The present friendly settlement report, issued pursuant to Article 49 of the American Convention and Article 41.5 of the Rules of the Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Rules of Procedure”), includes a summary of the facts claimed by the petitioners, a transcription of the Friendly Settlement Agreement HRS. N° 261-2005-JUS, signed by the Minister of Justice on December 22, 2005, with a group of twenty-six magistrates and prosecutors who were not reconfirmed by the CNM; on January 5, 2006, with thirteen petitioners; on February 8, 2006, with a group of nine petitioners, and on February 10, 2006 with 4 additional petitioners, for a total of 52 petitioners. This report also approves the terms of the Agreement and orders the publication of the instant report.
II. BACKGROUND
5. The Political Constitution of 1993 sets forth the process by which judges and prosecutors are reconfirmed in Peru. In particular, Article 154 provides that one of the functions of the National Council of the Magistracy is to “reconfirm judges and prosecutors at all levels every seven years.[4]
6. The reconfirmation process for magistrates and prosecutors consists of an evaluation of each and every official, conducted by members of the National Council of the Magistracy (CNM) based on information gathered from public and private institutions relating to their professional performance, productivity rate, professional and personal reputation, and personal, family, social, and economic situation. This evaluation also includes a 30 minute interview during which they are consulted on various matters relating to the evaluation criteria. CNM members then deliberate in private and make a decision in justice and in fairness, which is announced in the form of a resolution. These resolutions do not have to state a reasoned basis for the decision taken by the CNM members. When a decision is made not to reconfirm an official, the appointment is rescinded and he or she is barred permanently from a judicial posting. No remedy is available to appeal these resolutions before the issuing authority or before any other authority. These resolutions are not subject to review in the contentious administrative venue or through other legal actions. The vacancies created through this process are filled by way of a competitive, merit-based public contest.
III. FACTS CLAIMED, PROCESS BEFORE THE COMMISISON
A. Petitioners
who signed the Friendly Settlement Agreement of December
1. ALVARADO GALVÁN, ILEANA MORAYMA, P 33-03
7. According to the petition dated December 2, 2002, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed to her post as Titular Provincial Prosecutor of Lima, pursuant to an October 11, 2002 agreement of the National Council of the Magistracy (CNM) en banc; subsequently in a Resolution of October 16, of that year, her appointment was rescinded and her title revoked. According to the petition, the petitioner did not pursue any domestic legal remedy since, under Peruvian law, there is no judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
8. On January 8, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by sixteen magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which included as an alleged victim Mrs. Ileana Morayma Alvarado Galván, and assigned it number 33-03. On October 1, 2003, eight petitions[5] were joined under number 33-03, as they address similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information on the allegations presented.
2. ÁLVAREZ GUILLÉN, JAIME, P 494-04
9. According to the petition dated November 15, 2004, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed to his post as Superior Magistrate [Vocal Superior] pursuant to an agreement by the CNM en banc dated July 17, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution of July 19 of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner brought an action for amparo against the CNM, which the Constitutional Court declared unfounded in an August 12, 2005 ruling.
10. On November 23, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Jaime Álvarez Guillen, and assigned it number 1269-04. The petition was joined under number 494-04 as they addressed similar facts and, on March 23, 2005, the Commission opened the case, and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information on the allegations contained therein.
3. ARELLANO SERQUEN, JULIA ELEYZA, P 105-04
11. According to the petition dated January 28, 2004, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in her post as Superior Magistrate [Vocal Superior] of the Superior Court of Justice of Lambayeque, pursuant to an agreement of National Council of the Magistracy (CNM) en banc dated August 15, 2001; subsequently, in a Resolution of August 17 of that year, her appointment was rescinded and her title revoked. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner brought an action for amparo against the CNM, which the Constitutional Court declared unfounded in an April 8, 2003 ruling, while preserving her right to stand for a judgeship in the future.
12. On February 12, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mrs. Julia Eleyza Arellano Serquen, and assigned it number 105-04. On April 26, 2004, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions to the Peruvian State, requesting information on the allegations contained therein.
4. AVILEZ ROSALES, RICARDO, P 33-03
13. According to the petition dated January 6, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in his post as Specialized Judge for Labor Matters of the Superior Court of Lima, pursuant to agreements taken by the CNM en banc during its continuous session of August 27-28, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 28 of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies he points out that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a is applicable because Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
14. On January 10, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by seven magistrates and prosecutors who were not reconfirmed, which included Mr. Ricardo Avilez Rosales as an alleged victim, and assigned it number 065-03. On October 1, 2003, the petition was joined under number 33-03 as the facts addressed are similar, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information on the allegations contained therein.
5. CASTAÑEDA SÁNCHEZ, MIGUEL GRIMALDO, P 711-01
15. According to the petition dated October 12, 2001, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in his post as Superior Magistrate [Vocal Superior] of the Transitional Criminal Court of the Supreme Court of Justice, pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated September 19, 2001, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. He asserts that he has not pursued any domestic remedy since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial oversight of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy, and therefore argues that the exceptions set forth in Article 46.2 (a and b) of the American Convention are applicable.
16. On October 15, 2001, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Miguel Grimaldo Castañeda Sánchez, and assigned it number 711-01. On September 6, 2002, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information on the allegations contained therein.
6. CATACORA GONZÁLES, DALIA AURORA, P 33-03
17. According to the petition dated July 17, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Superior Titular Prosecutor [Fiscal Titular Superior] pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc dated September 18, 2001; subsequently, in a Resolution of September 20 of that year, her appointment was rescinded and her title revoked. The petitioner asserts that she brought an action for amparo and states that a judgment had not been issued at the time the petition was lodged before the IACHR (July 17, 2003).
18. On August 11, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by seven magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which included as an alleged victim Mrs. Dalia Aurora Catacora Gonzáles, and assigned it number 600-03. On October 1, 2003, the petition was joined under number 33-03, as the facts addressed are similar, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
7. CUEVA GÓNGORA, JOSÉ, P 4394-02
19. According to the petition dated October 14, 2002, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Superior Prosecutor [Fiscal Superior] of the Judicial District of Lima, pursuant to an agreement by the CNM en banc dated July 17, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution of the same date, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, he points out that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable since Peruvian law does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
20. On October 23, 2002, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by twenty-six magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which included as an alleged victim Mr. José Cueva Góngora, and assigned it number 4394-02. On November 18, 2002, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
8. CHAUPIS HUARANGA DE RICSE, NATIVIDAD, P 137-04
21. According to the petition dated April 13, 2004, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Titular Judge of the Professional Magistrates Court of Villa Maria del Triunfo of the Judicial District of Lima, pursuant to agreements during the continuous session of the CNM en banc dated May 14 and 15, 2001; subsequently, in a Resolution of May 25 of the same year, her appointment was rescinded and her title revoked. The petitioner brought an action for amparo contesting the resolution of the National Council of the Magistracy, which was rejected in all instances. In a January 20, 2004 ruling, the Constitutional Court declared the action for amparo to be unfounded, while preserving the complainant’s right to stand for a judicial appointment in the future, should she so desire.
22. On August 2, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Natividad Chaupis Huaranga and assigned it number 683-04. On November 15, 2004, the petition was joined under petition number 137-04 as the facts addressed are similar and, on November 23 of that year, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
9. GARROTE AMAYA, DURBIN JUAN, P 4394-02
23. According to the petition dated October 14, 2002, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Superior Magistrate [Vocal Superior] of the Judicial District of Lima pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc dated July 17, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution of that same date, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. He asserts that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
24. On October 23, 2002, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by twenty-six magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which included as an alleged victim Mr. Durbin Juan Garrote Amaya, and assigned it number 4394-02. On November 18, 2002, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
10. GÓMEZ ALVA, FIDEL, P 137-04
25. According to the petition dated May 3, 2004, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Provisional Magistrate [Vocal Provisional] of the Criminal Court of Huaura, pursuant to agreements of the CNM en banc during its continuous session of May 11, 14, and 15, 2001; subsequently, in a Resolution dated May 25 of that same year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner asserts that because he was granted an interview during the evaluation and reconfirmation process in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Organic Law of the CNM, he brought an action for amparo. The latter resulted in a Constitutional Court judgment declaring without relevance the resolution issued by the National Council of the Magistracy and ordering that the appellant be granted an interview. The National Council of the Magistracy, in accordance with the Constitutional Court judgment, granted the dismissed magistrate an interview, but proceeded to dismiss him afterward, pursuant to Resolution 096/2004/CNM of March 11, 2004. The petitioner claims that the lack of grounds in the resolution ordering his dismissal, and the absence of a prior procedure in which the affected party is allowed to participate, constitute violations of due process and the right to a defense. He asserts that the lifetime ineligibility to return to a judicial appointment constitutes a violation of Article 23.1.c of the Convention.
26. On May 3, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Fidel Gómez Alva, and assigned it number 430-04. On November 15, 2004, the petition was joined under number 137-04 as it addresses similar facts, and, on November 23 of that year, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
11. GONZÁLES VICTORIO, SAMUEL ONÉSIMO, P 119-03
27. According to the petition dated February 4, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Titular Judge of the Eleventh Chamber for Labor Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 28, 2002, his appointment was rescinded and his title of Titular Specialized Judge revoked. The petitioner claims that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable because Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
28. On February 7, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by four magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which included as an alleged victim Mr. Samuel Onésimo Gonzáles Victorio, and assigned it number 119-03. On November 5, 2003, six petitions[6] were joined under 119-03 as they address similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
12. JO LAOS, MARÍA ELENA, P 33-03
29. According to the petition dated April 30, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Specialized Titular Judge for Labor Matters of the Judicial District of Lima pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, her appointment was rescinded and her title revoked. The petitioner asserts that she did not pursue any domestic legal remedy since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
30. On May, 6 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by four magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which included Mrs. María Elena Jo Laos as an alleged victim, and assigned it number 320-03. On October 1, 2003, the petition was joined under number 33-03 as it addresses similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
13. LA MADRID IBÁÑEZ, HUGO, P 202-04
31. According to the petition dated March 8, 2004, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Provincial Titular Assistant Prosecutor [Fiscal Provincial Adjunto Titular] of Lambayeque pursuant to an August 16, 2001 agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 17 of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner brought an action for amparo contesting the resolution issued by the National Council of the Magistracy, which was rejected in all instances. A Constitutional Court judgment dated January 22, 2004, found the action for amparo to be unfounded, while preserving the appellant’s right to stand for a judicial appointment in the future, should he so desire.
32. On March 16, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Hugo Lamadrid Ibáñez, and assigned it number 202-04. On April 28, 2004, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
14. LINARES SAN ROMÁN, JUAN JOSÉ, P 119-03
33. According to the petition dated February 4, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Specialized Judge for Labor Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 28, 2002, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner claims that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decision adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
34. On February 7, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by four magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which included Mr. Juan José Linares San Román as an alleged victim, and assigned it number 119-03. On November 5, 2003, six petitions[7] were joined under number 119-03 as they address similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
15. LOSZA MÉNDEZ, MALCO, P 137-04
35. According to the petition dated September 29, 2004, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Titular Provincial Prosecutor of the Combined Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Yungay, pursuant to a June 8, 2001 agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated June 11 of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. On July 6, 2001, the petitioner brought an action for amparo which was declared unfounded by the courts of first and second instance. He subsequently filed an extraordinary appeal which the Constitutional Court rejected in a January 22, 2004 judgment, while upholding his right to stand for a judicial appointment in the future.
36. On October 6, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Marco Losza Méndez and assigned it number 1027-04. On November 15, 2004, the petition was joined under petition number 137-04 as it addresses similar facts and, on November 23 of that year, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
16. MARTEL CHANG, ROLANDO ALFONSO, P 33-03
37. According to the petition dated January 6, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Specialized Judge in Civil Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, pursuant to the agreements of the CNM en banc in its continuous session on August 27 and 28, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 28 of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner claims that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
38. On January 10, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by seven magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which includes as an alleged victim Mr. Rolando Alfonso Martel Chang, and assigned it number 065-03. On October 1, 2003, the petition was joined under number 33-03 as it addresses similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
17. MONTES TISNADO, ADELAIDA ELIZABETH, P 33-03
39. According to the petition dated December 2, 2002, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Titular Provincial Prosecutor of Lima pursuant to an agreement of the National Council of the Magistracy (CNM) en banc dated October 11, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution dated October 16 of that year, her appointment was rescinded and her title revoked. She asserts that she has not pursued any domestic legal remedy since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
40. On January 8, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by sixteen magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which included as an alleged victim Mrs. Adelaida Elizabeth Montes Tisnado, and assigned it number 33-03. On October 1, 2003, eight petitions[8] were joined under number 33-03 as they address similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
18. MUNIVE RIVERA, HERACLIO, P 119-03
41. According to the petition dated August 29, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Titular Superior Magistrate [Vocal Superior Titular] of the Superior Court of Justice of Junín pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 1, 2003, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner claims that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
42. On September 2, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Heraclio Munive Olivera, and assigned it number 695-03. On November 5, 2003, the petition was joined under petition number 119-03 as it addresses similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
19. NAVAS RONDÓN, CARLOS, P 4394-02
43. According to the petition dated October14, 2002, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Superior Prosecutor [Fiscal Superior] of the Judicial District of Lima pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc dated July 17, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution of that same date, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner claims that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
44. On October 23, 2002, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by twenty-six magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which includes as an alleged victim Mr. Carlos Navas Rondón, and assigned it number 4394-02. On November 18, 2002, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
20. PERALTA RAMÍREZ, MARÍA, P 33-03
45. According to the petition dated December 2, 2002, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Titular Provincial Prosecutor of Lima pursuant to an agreement of the National Council of the Magistracy (CNM) en banc dated October 11, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution dated October 16, of that year, her appointment was rescinded and her title revoked. The petitioner points out that she did not pursue any domestic legal remedy since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
46. On January 8, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by sixteen magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which includes as an alleged victim Mrs. María Peralta Ramírez, and assigned it number 33-03. On October 1, 2003, eight petitions[9] were joined under number 33-03 as they address similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
21. PIMENTEL ZEGARRA, BERNARDO ALCIBÍADES, P 119-03
47. According to the petition dated September 29, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Titular Superior Magistrate [Vocal Superior Titular] of the Superior Court of Justice of Junin, pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc and, in a Resolution dated August 1, 2003, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner claims that he did not pursue any domestic legal remedy since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
48. On October 10, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by four magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which includes as an alleged victim Mr. Bernardo Alcibíades Pimentel Zegarra, and assigned it number 843-03. On November 5, 2003, the petition was joined under petition number 119-03 as it addresses similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
22. QUISPE ARANGO, PABLO, P 137-04
49. According to the petition dated August 2, 2002, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Supreme Assistant Prosecutor [Fiscal Adjunto Supremo] in Criminal Matters of the Judicial District of Lima pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc dated May 11, 2001; subsequently, in a Resolution dated May 25 of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. He asserts that, because he was not granted an interview during the evaluation and reconfirmation process in accordance with Article 30 of the Organic Law of the CNM, he brought an action for amparo. This gave rise to a Constitutional Court judgment of March 18, 2003 declaring without relevance the resolution of the National Council of the Magistracy and ordering that the appellant be granted a personal interview. Pursuant to the Constitutional Court judgment, the National Council of the Magistracy, granted the petitioner an interview but, on March 11, 2004, once again dismissed him from his post.
50. On August 13, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Pablo Quispe Arango, and assigned it number 737-04. On November 15, 2004, the petition was joined under petition number 137-04 as it addresses similar facts, and on November 23 of that year, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
23. QUISPE SEGOVIA, HÉCTOR, P 119-03
51. According to the petition dated September 29, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Magistrate [Vocal] of the Superior Court of Justice of Ica, pursuant to a July 3, 2002 agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated July 6 of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, he asserts that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
52. On October 10, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by four magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which includes as an alleged victim Mr. Héctor Quispe Segovia, and assigned it number 843-03. On November 5, 2003, the petition was joined under petition number 119-03 as it addresses similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
24. ROSAS MONTOYA, SEGUNDO BENJAMÍN, P 119-03
53. According to the petition dated February 4, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Specialized Judge for Labor Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 28, 2002, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner asserts that he brought an action for amparo, which was declared unfounded due to the nature of the process of non reconfirmation of judges and prosecutors. According to the petitioner, the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
54. On February 7, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by four magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which includes as an alleged victim Mr. Segundo Benjamín Rosas Montoya, and assigned it number 119-03. On November 5, 2003, six petitions[10] were joined under number 119-03 as they address similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
25. SICLLA VILLAFUERTE, ELMER, P 33-03
55. According to the petition dated April 30, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Specialized Judge for Criminal Matters of the Judicial District of Lima pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner assets that he has not pursued any domestic legal remedy since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
56. On May 6, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by four magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which includes as an alleged victim Mr. Elmer Siclla Villafuerte, and assigned it number 320-03. On October 1, 2003, the petition was joined under number 33-03 as it addresses similar facts, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
26. TRELLES ROMERO, CARLOS, P 427-03
57. According to the petition dated June 3, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Provincial Assistant Prosecutor of the Combined Public Prosecutor’s Office [Fiscalía Mixta] of Trujillo of the Judicial District of La Libertad, pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 17, 2001, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner brought an action for amparo which the Constitutional Court declared unfounded in a March 23, 2003, judgment, while preserving his right to stand for a judicial appointment in the future.
58. On June 12, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Carlos Trelles Romero, and assigned it number 427-03. On February 10, 2004, and the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
B.
Petitioners who signed the Friendly Settlement Agreement of January
27. ARAGÓN IBARRA, LUIS ANGEL, P 909-03
59. According to the petition dated October 28, 2003, the petitioner was a Magistrate [Vocal] of the Superior Court of Justice of Cusco until September 5, 2003, when he was dismissed after not being reconfirmed in his post as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, he asserts that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
60. On November 10, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Luis Ángel Aragón Ibarra and assigned it number 945-03. On December 3, 2003, the Commission joined the petition under petition number 909-03 as it addresses similar facts, opened the case, and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
28. BERAÚN RODRÍGUEZ, RICARDO JESÚS, P 137-04
61. According to the petition dated September 27, 2004, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Specialized Judge of the Judicial District of Huánuco, pursuant to a July 12, 2001 agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated July 13 of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner filed an action for amparo against CNM, which the Constitutional Court declared without merit in a November 11, 2003 judgment.
62. On October 6, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Ricardo Jesús Beraún Rodríguez and assigned it number 1025-04. On November 15, 2004, the petition was joined under petition number 137-04 as it addresses similar facts and, on November 23 of that year, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
29. CAVERO FLORES, SUNCIONA, P 64-04
63. According to the petition dated January 21, 2004, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Titular Professional Justice of the Peace [Jueza de Paz Letrado Titular] of the Judicial District of Lambayeque, pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc of August 15 and 16, 2001; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 17 of that year, her appointment was rescinded and her title revoked. The petitioner brought an action for amparo against the CNM, which the Constitutional Court declared unfounded in a March 24, 2003 ruling.
64. On January 29, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mrs. Sunciona Cavero Flores and assigned it number 64-04. On April 1 of that year, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
30. DEGRACIA VELÁSQUEZ, GERARDO GERMÁN, P 137-04
65. According to the petition dated July 2, 2004, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Provincial Assistant Prosecutor of the First Combined Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Trujillo [Primera Fiscalía Provincial Mixta de Trujillo] –now the First Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Trujillo of the Judicial District of La Libertad, pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 17, 2001, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner brought an action for amparo against the CNM, which the Constitutional Court declared unfounded in a March 18, 2003 judgment, while upholding his right to stand for a judicial posting in the future.
66. On July 13, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Gerardo Germán Degracia Velásquez and assigned it number 629-04. On November 15, 2004, the petition was joined under petition number 137-04 as it addresses similar facts and, on November 23 of that year, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
31. DEL CARPIO RODRÍGUEZ, COLUMBA MARÍA, P 4576-02
67. According to the petition dated November 27, 2002, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Superior Magistrate [Vocal Superior] of the Judicial District of Arequipa pursuant to agreements of the CNM en banc in the continuous session of August 27 and 28, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution of August 29 of that year, her appointment was rescinded and her title revoked. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner claims that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a is applicable since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
68. On November 27, 2002, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. César Abarca Fernández, on behalf of Mrs. Columba Maria del Carpio Rodríguez and assigned it number 4576-02. On January 2, 2003, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
32. DELGADO DE MARKY, LUZ ELIZABETH, P 137-04
69. According to the petition dated April 7, 2004, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in her post of Titular Judge of the Judicial District of Lima, pursuant to agreements of the CNM en banc at its continuous session of August 27 and 28, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 29 of that year, her appointment was rescinded and her title rescinded. The petitioner asserts that she brought an action for amparo in October 2002. She further asserts that no judgment had been handed down as of the date the petition was lodged before the IACHR (April 4, 2004).
70. On April 12, 2004, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mrs. Luz Elizabeth Delgado Guillen de Marky and assigned it number 296-04. On November 15, 2004, the petition was joined under petition number 137-04 as it addresses similar facts and, on November 23 of that year, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
33. MARTIARENA GUTIÉRREZ, LEONCIO, P 33-03
71. According to the petition dated August 28, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Titular Professional Justice of the Peace [Juez de Paz Letrado Titular] of the Santiago district, under the Judicial District of Cusco, pursuant to a September 18 2001 agreement of the CNM en banc; subsequently, in a Resolution of September 19 of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner filed an action for amparo against the CNM, which was rejected as unfounded by three courts. On May 25, 2003, the Constitutional Court notified him of a final judgment in the action, which was dated January 27, 2003.
72. On September 25, 2003, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Leoncio Martiarena Gutiérrez and assigned it number 714-03. The petition was joined under number 33-03 as it addresses similar facts and, on October 1, 2003, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
34. MINAYA GUERRERO, ESTEBAN URBANO, P 4331-02
73. According to the petition dated September 30, 2002, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Titular Superior Prosecutor [Fiscal Superior Titular] of the First Combined Superior Prosecutor’s Office [Primera Fiscalía Superior Mixta] of the Judicial District of Ayacucho, pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc dated June 8, 2001; subsequently, in a Resolution dated June 11 of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. The petitioner brought an action for amparo which was declared unfounded on December 27, 2001. The alleged victim then filed an appeal which was declared without merit on April 4, 2002. Finally, the petitioner filed a complaint as a matter of law [queja de derecho], but on April 24, 2002 he was notified that the complaint was inadmissible and, on June 10, he was notified that the case had been set aside permanently.
74. On December 9, 2002, the Commission registered the complaint lodged by Mr. Esteban Urbano Minaya Guerrero and assigned it number 4331-02. On April 1, 2004, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
35. PACCINI VIRHUEZ, FLAVIO ERNESTO, P 4394-02
75. According to the petition dated October 14, 2002, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Assistant to the Supreme Prosecutor for Criminal Matters [Fiscal Adjunto al Fiscal Supremo en lo Penal] of the Judicial District of Lima, pursuant to an agreement of the CNM en banc of May 2001; subsequently, in a Resolution dated May 25, of that year, his appointment was rescinded and his title revoked. Given that, during the evaluation and reconfirmation process he had not been granted an interview in accordance with Article 30 of the Organic Law of the CNM, he brought an action for amparo that resulted in a Constitutional Court judgment of March 18, 2003 declaring the resolution of the National Council of the Magistracy without relevance and ordering that the appellant be granted a personal interview.
76. On October 23, 2002, the Commission registered the complaint, lodged by twenty-six magistrates and prosecutors who had not been reconfirmed, which includes as an alleged victim Mr. Flavio Ernesto Paccini Virhuez, and assigned it number 4394-02. On November 18, 2002, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the relevant portions of the complaint to the Peruvian State, requesting information concerning the allegations contained therein.
36. PALACIOS TEJADA, OLGA LOURDES, P 33-03
77. According to the petition dated January 6, 2003, as a result of the Process of Evaluation and Reconfirmation of Judges and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, the petitioner was not reconfirmed in the post of Specialized Judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima pursuant to the agreements of the CNM en banc at its continuous session of August 27 and 28, 2002; subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 28 of that year, her appointment was rescinded and her title revoked. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner claims that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable since Peruvian legislation does not provide for judicial review of the decisions adopted by the National Council of the Magistracy.
|
