2
the resolutions that dismissed them: Nos. 002-97-CR, 003-97-CR and 004-97-CR of
May 28, 1997. As part of the reparation, the Commission requested that the alleged
victims should be compensated for all the salary-related income that they failed to
receive from the time of their dismissal until the date of their effective
reinstatement, and also receive a payment for moral damages.
Lastly, the
Commission requested that Peru should be condemned to pay the “reasonable”
expenses and costs incurred by the alleged victims and their lawyers when
processing the case in the Peruvian jurisdiction and before the Commission and the
Inter-American Court.
II
COMPETENCE OF THE COURT
3.
The Court is competent to hear this case. Peru has been a State Party to the
Convention since July 28, 1978, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the
Court on January 21, 1981.
III
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
4.
On May 15, 1997, the Inter-American Commission received a petition signed
by 27 deputies of the Congress of Peru, concerning the dismissal of the justices of
the Constitutional Court referred to above. On July 16, 1997, the Commission
began processing this petition and forwarded the pertinent parts to the State
requesting it to provide any relevant information within 90 days.
5.
On October 16, 1997, Peru submitted a report prepared by the National
Human Rights Council (Official letter No. 1858-97-JUS/CNDH-SE), in which it
requested that the Commission declare the petition inadmissible “inasmuch as the
petitioners ha[d] not exhausted domestic remedies.” On October 21, 1997, the
Commission forwarded this report to the petitioners, requesting that they present
any comments within 30 days.
6.
On January 28, 1998, the Commission convened a public audience for
February 25, 1998, during its 98th regular session, in order to hear the parties
concerning the admissibility of the petition.
7.
On April 30, 1998, the petitioners requested that the Commission find the
petition admissible. That same day, the Commission informed the State of this
request.
8.
On May 5, 1998, during the 99th special session, the Commission adopted
the Admissibility Report on petition No. 35/98, in which it concluded “that since the
exceptions provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention applied in the instant
case, it was not necessary for domestic remedies to be exhausted for the
Commission to be competent to take up the petition.” In a note of June 29, 1998,
the State replied, stating that, as the Admissibility Report had been issued, “it was
unnecessary to make any comment on the allegations made prior to the
admissibility decision” and announced that it would submit a report concerning the
admissibility of the petition in this case at a later date. This information was
forwarded to the petitioners.