ÿWPCƒ „•Š%3÷ÿØ÷ÙsÁpà‹ä,Éë)Ë7-äj»Ž¹Ó„±8È7• ÕX ²Ú±HI¿»”Ôˆ]úš9Ë®ÛBHß 5š¯b"Ðcj7 @$·qß0ÕÕD[2'8±ET’ɰD·{¯û>È”—‚‹ÞhœnáõÞn ²Sijé]Á§‰Âê¤k÷Ç}ŸLÍç*Õh/cž>DäVUÜ@GSÎçª{Õðö§÷ÎÜ%ª÷6iC]EÚ=Ê Áf6é6€qx>- “ÁÕY§opØì™o-‰Sc`!õ+¹ØÓ™êÊp…]°¶åËYÇÊé¿®íù<Ñ(%7§gÑ4ÿQñ‹j¸øä'ÑMg‚6YFù ²ÑÍU ¯LpþšP‘õ6 Àr›¬_¯õ?Ç=+P¬z‰D½ä@™æ† gÙìm¼6´{iµ¼I6?nQü¾kßÐÃBwòCW=B¾(Æ,- ó_SÑçeÜ~ašši‘VïcbôþGô…¶“ ÜÂUFˆu+A*ûvÑtí­r¬‹$ž*åE¸ùÅKN¿îÈ?§ f@õª›jjêJh« “„¼@Vllö´éè0jõRñ×à<˜Ì”¿8Ë@Zp<@ÙU>z̸ 0µ„ 0<9 0Yu 0_Î 0i- 0P–Ææ 0ᬠ0( D+µ AMà - 0Æ= #Á UNÄ %M(ND^ FwR4Vj mlô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Ruben Toribio Mu9oz Hermoza v. Peru, Communication No. 203/1986 (4 November 1988), U.N. Do4vember 1988), U.N. Do"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ0ÿÿ.Strongò òÔ  Ôó óÔ  Ô Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2mM$££Ý ƒ¶"!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X~_XXXÔÔ€X~_XXX~_ÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ž¶"$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XeÏXXXÔÔ€XeÏXXXeÏÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX9„ú* Äpì*´ë ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ¶"!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X~_XXXÔÔ€X~_XXX~_ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔMuozÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€PeruóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€203/1986€Ð H˜ ÐÌ4€November€1988Ð  d ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:óó€Ruben€Ô_ÔToribioÔ_Ô€Munoz€Ô_ÔHermozaÔ_ÔÐ xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victim:óó€The€authorÐ D”  ÐÌòòState€party€concerned:óó€PeruÐ ` ÐÌòòDate€of€communication:óó€13€January€1986€(date€of€initial€letter)Ð Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibility:óó€10€July€1987óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committee,€óóestablished€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð @ ÐÌòòMeeting€óóon€4€November€1988,Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concluded€óóits€consideration€of€communication€No.€203/1986,€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐCommittee€by€Ruben€Ô_ÔToribioÔ_Ô€Munoz€Ô_ÔHermozaÔ_Ô€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€theÐ ¾ ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð ¤ô ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€account€óóall€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication€and€by€the€State€party€concerned,Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòAdopts€óóthe€following:Ð "$r# ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóóó óÐ Ô&$"& ÐÓ©ÓÌÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€dated€31€January€1986€and€subsequentÐ †)Ö$) Ðletters€dated€29€November€1986,€10€February€1987,€11€May€and€5€October€1988)€is€RubenÐ l*¼%* ÐÔ_ÔToribioÔ_Ô€Munoz€Ô_ÔHermozaÔ_Ô,€a€Peruvian€citizen€and€ex„Ô_ÔsargeantÔ_Ô€of€the€Ô_ÔGuardiaÔ_Ô€Civil€(police),Ð R+¢&+ Ðcurrently€residing€in€Cuzco,€Peru.€He€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€of€his€human€rights,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðin€particular€of€discrimination€and€of€denial€of€justice€by€Peruvian€authorities.€He€invokesÐ -n(- ÐPeruvian€Law€No.€23,506,€article€39€of€which€provides€that€a€Peruvian€citizen€who€considersÐ ° Ðthat€his€or€her€constitutional€rights€have€been€violated€may€appeal€to€the€United€NationsÐ –æ ÐHuman€Rights€Committee.€Article€40€of€the€same€law€provides€that€the€Peruvian€SupremeÐ |Ì ÐCourt€will€receive€the€resolutions€of€the€Committee€and€order€their€implementation.Ð b² ÐÌ2.1€The€author€alleges€that€he€was€"temporarily€suspended"€(Ô_ÔcesacionÔ_Ô€temporal€oÐ . ~ ÐÔ_ÔdisponibilidadÔ_Ô)€from€the€Ô_ÔGuardiaÔ_Ô€Civil€on€25€September€1978€by€virtue€of€Ô_ÔDirectoralÔ_ÔÐ  d ÐResolution€No.€2437„78„GC/DP€on€false€accusations€of€having€insulted€a€superior.Ð ú J ÐNevertheless,€when€he€was€brought€before€a€judge€on€28€September€1978€on€the€said€charge,Ð à 0 Ðhe€was€immediately€released€for€lack€of€evidence.€The€author€cites€a€number€of€relevantÐ Æ   ÐPeruvian€decrees€and€laws€providing,€òòinter€alia,€óóthat€a€member€of€the€Ô_ÔGuardiaÔ_Ô€Civil€"cannotÐ ¬ ü  Ðbe€dismissed€except€upon€a€conviction"€and€that€such€dismissal€can€only€be€imposed€by€theÐ ’â  ÐSupreme€Council€of€Military€Justice.€By€administrative€decision€No.€0165„84„60,€dated€30Ð xÈ  ÐJanuary€1984,€he€was€definitively€discharged€from€service€under€the€provisions€of€article€27Ð ^®  Ðof€Decree„Law€No.€18081.€The€author€claims€that€after€having€served€in€the€Ô_ÔGuardiaÔ_Ô€CivilÐ D”  Ðfor€over€20€years€he€has€been€arbitrarily€deprived€of€his€livelihood€and€of€his€acquired€rights,Ð *z  Ðincluding€accrued€retirement€rights,€thus€leaving€him€in€a€state€of€destitution,€particularlyÐ ` Ðconsidering€that€he€has€eight€children€to€feed€and€clothe.Ð öF ÐÌ2.2€The€author€has€spent€10€years€going€through€the€various€domestic€administrative€andÐ Â Ðjudicial€instances;€copies€of€the€relevant€decisions€are€enclosed.€His€request€for€reinstatementÐ ¨ø Ðin€the€Ô_ÔGuardiaÔ_Ô€Civil,€dated€5€October€1978€and€addressed€to€the€Ministry€of€the€Interior,€wasÐ ŽÞ Ðat€first€not€processed€and€finally€turned€down,€nearly€six€years€later,€on€29€February€1984.Ð tÄ ÐHis€appeal€against€this€administrative€decision€was€dismissed€by€the€Ministry€of€the€InteriorÐ Zª Ðon€31€December€1985€on€the€grounds€that€he€was€also€pursuing€a€judicial€remedy.€ThisÐ @ Ðended€the€administrative€review€without€any€decision€on€the€merits,€over€seven€years€afterÐ &v Ðhis€initial€petition€for€reinstatement.€The€author€explains€that€he€had€turned€to€the€courts,Ð  \ Ðbasing€himself€on€article€28€of€the€law€on€òòÔ_ÔamparoÔ_Ôóó€which€provides€that€"the€exhaustion€ofÐ òB Ðprevious€procedures€shall€not€be€required€if€such€exhaustion€could€render€injury€irreparable",Ð Ø( Ðand€in€view€of€the€delay€and€apparent€inaction€in€processing€the€administrative€review.€OnÐ ¾ Ð18€March€1985€the€Court€of€First€Instance€in€Cuzco€held€that€the€author's€action€of€òòÔ_ÔamparoÔ_ÔóóÐ ¤ô Ðwas€well€founded€and€declared€his€dismissal€null€and€void,€ordering€that€he€be€reinstated.Ð Š Ú ÐOn€Ô_ÔppealÔ_Ô,€however,€the€Superior€Court€of€Cuzco€rejected€the€author's€action€of€òòÔ_ÔamparoÔ_ÔóóÐ p!À  Ðstating€that€the€period€for€lodging€such€action€had€expired€in€March€1983.€The€case€was€thenÐ V"¦! Ðexamined€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Peru,€which€held€on€9€October€1985,€that€the€authorÐ <#Œ" Ðcould€not€start€an€action€of€òòÔ_ÔamparoÔ_Ôóó€before€the€previous€administrative€review€had€beenÐ "$r# Ðcompleted.€Thus,€the€author€claims€that,€as€evidenced€by€these€inconsistent€decisions,€he€hasÐ %X $ Ðbeen€a€victim€of€denial€of€justice.€As€far€as€the€completion€of€the€administrative€review,€heÐ î%>!% Ðpoints€out€that€it€is€not€his€fault€that€said€review€was€kept€pending€for€seven€years,€and€that,Ð Ô&$"& Ðin€any€case,€for€as€long€as€the€review€was€pending,€the€period€of€limitations€for€an€action€ofÐ º' #' ÐòòÔ_ÔamparoÔ_Ô€óócould€not€start€running,€let€alone€expire.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ3.€By€its€decision€of€26€March€1986,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€transmitted€theÐ l*¼%* Ðcommunication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€to€the€State€party,Ð R+¢&+ Ðrequesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€the€admissibility€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcommunication€in€so€far€as€it€may€raise€issues€under€Ô_ÔrticlesÔ_Ô€14€(1),€25€and€26€of€theÐ -n(- ÐÔ_ÔInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€The€Committee€also€requested€the€StateÐ ° Ðparty€to€explain€the€reasons€for€he€dismissal€of€Mr.€Munoz€and€the€reasons€for€the€delays€inÐ –æ Ðthe€administrative€proceedings€concerning€his€request€for€reinstatement,€and€further€toÐ |Ì Ðindicate€when€the€administrative€proceedings€were€expected€to€be€concluded€and€whetherÐ b² Ðthe€recourse€of€òòamparo€óówould€still€be€available€to€Mr.€Munoz€at€that€time.Ð H˜ ÐÌ4.€In€a€further€submission,€dated€29€November€1986,€the€author€informed€the€committee€thatÐ  d Ðthe€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees€of€Peru,€by€judgement€of€20€May€1986,€had€heldÐ ú J Ðthat€his€action€of€òòamparo€óówas€admissible€(procedente)€and€that€it€had€quashed€the€judgementÐ à 0 Ðof€the€Supreme€Court€of€Peru€of€29€October€1985.€However,€no€action€has€yet€been€takenÐ Æ   Ðto€enforce€the€judgement€of€the€Civil€Court€of€First€Instance€of€Cuzco€of€18€March€1985.Ð ¬ ü  ÐThe€author€claims€that€this€delay€is€indicative€of€abuse€of€authority€and€failure€to€complyÐ ’â  Ðwith€Peruvian€law€in€matters€of€human€rights€(article€36€taken€together€with€article€34€ofÐ xÈ  ÐLaw€No.€23,506).Ð ^®  ÐÌ5.€In€its€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€20€November€1986,€the€State€party€transmitted€theÐ *z  Ðcomplete€file€forwarded€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Justice€of€the€republic€concerning€Mr.Ð ` ÐMunoz€Hermoza,€stating,€òòinter€alia,€óóthat€"under€the€law€in€force,€the€internal€judicialÐ öF Ðremedies€were€exhausted€when€the€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees€handed€down€itsÐ Ü, Ðdecision".€The€State€party€did€not€provide€the€other€clarifications€requested€by€theÐ Â ÐCommittee.Ð ¨ø ÐÌ6.€In€his€comments,€dated€10€February€1987,€the€author€refers€to€the€judgement€of€theÐ tÄ ÐTribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees€of€Peru€in€his€favour€and€notes€that€"despite€the€timeÐ Zª Ðthat€has€elapsed,€the€enforcement€of€the€judgement€has€not€been€ordered€by€the€CivilÐ @ ÐChamber€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€Republic€of€Peru,€in€disregard€of€the€terms€of€articleÐ &v Ð36€of€Law€No.€23,506"Ð  \ ÐÌ7.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ Ø( ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ ¾ Ðwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Ð ¤ô ÐÌ7.2€With€regard€to€article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€CommitteeÐ p!À  Ðobserved€that€the€matter€complained€of€by€the€author€was€not€being€examined€and€had€notÐ V"¦! Ðbeen€examined€under€another€procedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement.€WithÐ <#Œ" Ðregard€to€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€has€confirmedÐ "$r# Ðthat€the€author€has€exhausted€domestic€remedies.Ð %X $ ÐÌ8.€On€10€July€1987,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decided€that€the€communicationÐ Ô&$"& Ðwas€admissible,€in€so€far€as€it€raised€issues€under€articles€14,€paragraph€1,€25€(c)€and€26,€inÐ º' #' Ðconjunction€with€article€2,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ9.1€In€a€submission€dated€11€May€1988€the€author€describes€the€further€development€of€theÐ l*¼%* Ðcase€and€reiterates€that€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€First€Instance€of€Cuzco€of€18€MarchÐ R+¢&+ Ð1985,€holding€that€his€action€of€òòamparo€óówas€well€founded€and€declaring€his€dismissal€nullÐ 8,ˆ', Ðand€void,€had€not€been€enforced,€in€spite€of€the€fact€that€on€24€September€1987€the€CuzcoÐ -n(- ÐCivil€Chamber€handed€down€a€similar€decision€on€the€merits€ordering€his€reinstatement€inÐ ° Ðhis€post€with€all€benefits.€The€author€complains€that€the€Civil€Chamber€subsequentlyÐ –æ Ðextended€the€statutory€time„limit€of€three€days€for€appeal€(provided€for€in€article€33€of€LawÐ |Ì ÐNo.€23,506),€and,€instead€of€ordering€the€enforcement€of€its€decision,€granted€òòex€officio€óóaÐ b² Ðspecial€appeal€for€annulment€on€24€November€1987€(i.e.€60€days€after€the€decision,Ð H˜ Ðpurportedly€in€contravention€of€article€10€of€Law€No.€23,506).€"Defence€of€the€State"€wasÐ . ~ Ðallegedly€adduced€as€grounds€for€the€decision€to€grant€a€special€appeal,€with€reference€beingÐ  d Ðmade€to€article€22€of€Decree„Law€No.€17,537.€This€decree„law,€the€author€contends,€wasÐ ú J Ðabrogated€by€Law€No.€23,506,€article€45€of€which€repeals€"all€provisions€which€prevent€orÐ à 0 Ðhinder€proceedings€for€òòhabeas€corpus€óóand€amparo.Ð Æ   ÐÌ9.2€The€Second€Civil€Chamber€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€Republic€again€received€the€caseÐ ’â  Ðon€22€December€1987.€A€hearing€took€place€on€15€April€1988,€allegedly€without€priorÐ xÈ  Ðnotification€to€the€author,€who€claims€not€to€have€received€the€text€of€any€judgement€orÐ ^®  Ðorder.€In€this€connection€he€observes€that€"the€only€way€to€avoid€restoring€my€constitutionalÐ D”  Ðrights€...€is€to€be€bogged€down€in€further€proceedings"Ð *z  ÐÌ9.3€In€particular,€the€author€questions€the€legality€of€the€Government€appeal,€since€allÐ öF Ðprocedural€and€substantive€issues€have€already€been€adjudicated,€and€the€Prosecutor€GeneralÐ Ü, Ðhimself,€in€a€written€opinion€dated€7€March€1988,€declared€that€the€decision€of€the€CuzcoÐ Â ÐCivil€Chamber€of€24€September€1987€was€valid€and€the€author's€action€of€òòamparo€óówellÐ ¨ø Ðfounded.€The€author€further€comments:€"the€only€correct€solution€would€have€been€to€rejectÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€appeal€and€refer€the€case€back€to€the€Civil€Chamber€of€the€Cuzco€Court€for€it€to€complyÐ tÄ Ðwith€the€order€to€[reinstate€him]€...".€Moreover,€a€lower€court€was€venturing€to€decide€in€aÐ Zª Ðmanner€which€conflicted€with€the€procedure€indicated€by€the€Tribunal€of€ConstitutionalÐ @ ÐGuarantees,€and€Decree„Law€No.€17,537€is€not€applicable€because€it€refers€to€types€ifÐ &v Ðordinary€litigation€in€which€the€State€is€a€party€and€not€to€actions€relating€to€constitutionalÐ  \ Ðguarantees,€in€which€the€State€is€under€a€duty€to€guarantee€full€obervance€of€human€rightsÐ òB Ð(articles€80€òòet€seq.€óóof€the€Peruvian€Constitution).€He€further€observes:€Ð Ø( ÐÌ"The€case€has€thus€been€virtually€'shelved'€indefinitely€by€the€Second€Civil€Chamber€of€theÐ ¤ô ÐSupreme€Court€in€Lima,€without€any€access€allowed€for€the€appellant,€and€without€counselÐ Š Ú Ðappointed.€I€was€thus€obliged€to€retain€a€lawyer,€but€he€was€not€allowed€to€see€the€papers€inÐ p!À  Ðthe€case€and€the€outcome€of€the€hearing€of€15€April€1988€'because€it€has€not€yet€been€signedÐ V"¦! Ðby€the€non„presiding€members€of€the€Court"Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ"In€these€circumstances,€an€application€was€submitted€requesting€a€certified€copy€of€theÐ %X $ Ðdecision€of€15€April€1988,€but€it€has€not€been€entertained€on€the€pretext€that€a€lawyer'sÐ î%>!% Ðsignature€was€missing€and€that€the€fees€had€not€been€paid.€This€is€a€breach€of€article€13€ofÐ Ô&$"& ÐAct€No.€23,506,€on€òòamparo,€óówhich€contains€tacit€dispensation€from€these€formalities,Ð º' #' Ðpursuant€to€article€295€of€the€Peruvian€Constitution."Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ9.4€The€author€also€indicates€that€he€has€spared€no€effort€to€try€to€arrive€at€a€settlement€ofÐ l*¼%* Ðhis€case.€On€21€February€1988,€he€wrote€to€the€President€of€Peru€describing€the€variousÐ R+¢&+ Ðstages€of€his€10„year€struggle€to€be€reinstated€in€his€post,€and€adducing€proceduralÐ 8,ˆ', Ðirregularities€and€instances€of€alleged€abuse€of€authority.€The€author's€petition€was€passedÐ -n(- Ðon€to€the€Deputy€Minister€of€the€Interior,€who,€in€turn,€communicated€it€to€the€Director€ofÐ ° Ðthe€Guardia€Civil.€Subsequently€the€Guardia€Civil's€Legal€Adviser€"rendered€a€legal€opinionÐ –æ Ðadvising€that€I€should€be€reinstated.€But€the€Subaltern€Ranks€Investigating€Council€and€theÐ |Ì ÐDirector€of€Personnel€rejected€my€petition.€There€is,€however,€nothing€in€writing€and€theÐ b² Ðdecision€was€purely€verbal".Ð H˜ ÐÌ9.5€In€view€of€the€foregoing,€the€author€requests€the€Committee€to€endorse€the€judgementsÐ  d Ðof€the€Court€of€the€First€Instance€of€Cuzco,€dated€18€March€1985,€and€of€the€Civil€ChamberÐ ú J Ðof€the€Court€of€Cuzco,€dated€24€September€1987,€and€to€recommend€his€reinstatement€in€theÐ à 0 ÐGuardia€Civil,€his€promotion€to€the€rank€he€would€have€attained€had€he€not€been€unjustlyÐ Æ   Ðdismissed,€and€the€granting€of€ancillary€benefits.€He€further€asks€the€Committee€to€take€intoÐ ¬ ü  Ðaccount€article€11€of€Law€No.€23,506€which€provides,€òòinter€alia,€óófor€indemnification.Ð ’â  ÐÌ9.6€By€letter€of€5€October€1988€the€author€informs€the€Committee€that€the€Second€CivilÐ ^®  ÐChamber€of€the€Supreme€Court€rule€on€15€April€1988€that€his€action€of€òòamparo€óówasÐ D”  Ðinadmissible€because€the€period€for€lodging€the€action€had€lapsed€on€18€March€1983,Ð *z  Ðwhereas€he€had€lodged€the€action€on€30€October€1984.€The€author€points€out€that€this€issueÐ ` Ðhad€already€been€definitively€decided€by€the€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees€on€20Ð öF ÐMay€1986,€which€held€that€his€action€of€òòamparo€óóhad€been€timely€lodged€(see€para.€4€above).Ð Ü, ÐOn€27€May€1988,€the€author€again€turned€to€the€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€GuaranteesÐ Â Ðrequesting€that€the€Supreme€Court's€Decision€of€15€April€1988€be€quashed.€The€author'sÐ ¨ø Ðnewest€action€is€still€pending.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ10.1€The€time„limit€for€the€State€party's€submission€under€article€4€(2)€of€the€OptionalÐ Zª ÐProtocol€expired€on€6€February€1988.€No€submission€has€been€received€from€the€State€party,Ð @ Ðdespite€a€reminder€sent€on€17€May€1988.€The€author's€further€submission€of€11€May€1988Ð &v Ðwas€transmitted€to€the€State€party€on€20€May€1988.€The€author's€subsequent€letter€of€5Ð  \ ÐOctober€1988€was€transmitted€to€the€State€party€on€21€October€1988.€No€comments€from€theÐ òB ÐState€party€have€been€received.Ð Ø( ÐÌ10.2€The€Committee€has€taken€due€note€that€the€author's€new€appeal€before€the€Tribunal€ofÐ ¤ô ÐConstitutional€Guarantees€is€still€pending.€This€fact,€however,€does€not€affect€theÐ Š Ú ÐCommittee's€decision€on€the€admissibility€of€the€communication,€because€judicialÐ p!À  Ðproceedings€in€this€case€have€been€unreasonably€prolonged.€In€this€context€the€CommitteeÐ V"¦! Ðalso€refers€to€the€State€party's€submission€of€20€November€1986€in€which€it€stated€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðdomestic€remedies€had€been€exhausted.Ð "$r# ÐÌ11.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€having€considered€the€present€communication€in€theÐ î%>!% Ðlight€of€all€the€information€made€available€to€it,€as€provided€in€article€5,€paragraph€1,€of€theÐ Ô&$"& ÐOptional€Protocol,€notes€that€the€facts€of€the€case,€as€submitted€by€the€author,€have€not€beenÐ º' #' Ðcontested€by€the€State€party.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ11.2€In€formulating€its€views,€the€Committee€takes€into€account€the€failure€of€the€State€partyÐ l*¼%* Ðto€furnish€certain€information€and€clarifications,€in€particular€with€regard€to€the€reasons€forÐ R+¢&+ ÐMr.€Munoz'€dismissal€and€for€the€delays€in€the€proceedings,€as€requested€by€the€CommitteeÐ 8,ˆ', Ðin€its€rule€91€decision,€and€with€regard€to€the€allegations€of€unequal€treatment€of€which€theÐ -n(- Ðauthor€has€complained.€It€is€implicit€in€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol€thatÐ ° Ðthe€State€party€has€the€duty€to€investigate€in€good€faith€all€allegations€of€violation€of€theÐ –æ ÐCovenant€made€against€it€and€its€authorities,€and€to€furnish€to€the€Committee€all€relevantÐ |Ì Ðinformation.€In€the€circumstances,€due€weight€must€be€given€to€the€author's€allegations.Ð b² ÐÌ11.3€With€respect€to€the€requirement€of€a€fair€hearing€as€stipulated€in€article€14.€paragraphÐ . ~ Ð1,€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€notes€that€the€concept€of€a€fair€hearing€necessarily€entailsÐ  d Ðthat€justice€be€rendered€without€undue€delay.€In€this€connection€the€Committee€observes€thatÐ ú J Ðthe€administrative€review€in€the€Munoz€case€was€kept€pending€for€seven€years€and€that€itÐ à 0 Ðended€with€a€decision€against€the€author€based€on€the€ground€that€he€had€started€judicialÐ Æ   Ðproceedings.€A€delay€of€seven€years€constitutes€an€unreasonable€delay.€Furthermore,€withÐ ¬ ü  Ðrespect€to€the€judicial€review,€the€Committee€notes€that€the€Tribunal€of€ConstitutionalÐ ’â  ÐGuarantee€decided€in€favour€of€the€author€in€1986€and€that€the€State€party€has€informed€theÐ xÈ  ÐCommittee€that€judicial€remedies€were€exhausted€with€that€decision€(para.€5€above).Ð ^®  ÐHowever,€the€delays€in€implementation€have€continued€and€two€and€a€half€years€after€theÐ D”  Ðjudgement€of€the€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees,€the€author€has€still€not€beenÐ *z  Ðreinstated€in€his€post.€This€delay,€which€the€State€party€has€not€explained,€constitutes€aÐ ` Ðfurther€aggravation€of€the€violation€of€the€principle€of€a€fair€hearing.€The€Committee€furtherÐ öF Ðnotes€that€on€24€September€1987€the€Cuzco€Civil€Chamber,€in€pursuance€of€the€decision€ofÐ Ü, Ðthe€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees,€ordered€that€the€author€be€reinstated;Ð Â Ðsubsequently,€in€a€written€opinion€dated€7€March€1988,€the€Public€Prosecutor€declared€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthe€decision€of€the€Cuzco€Civil€Chamber€was€valid€and€that€the€author's€action€of€òòamparoÐ ŽÞ Ðóówas€well€rounded.€But€even€after€these€clear€decisions,€the€Government€of€Peru€has€failedÐ tÄ Ðto€reinstate€the€author.€Instead,€yet€another€special€appeal,€this€time€granted€òòex€officio€óóinÐ Zª Ð"Defence€of€the€State"€(para.€9.1),€has€been€allowed,€which€resulted€in€a€contradictoryÐ @ Ðdecision€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Peru€on€15€April€1988,€declaring€that€the€author's€actionÐ &v Ðof€òòamparo€óóhad€not€been€lodged€timely€and€was€therefore€inadmissible.€This€procedural€issue,Ð  \ Ðhowever,€had€already€been€adjudicated€by€the€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees€in€1986,Ð òB Ðbefore€which€the€author's€action€is€again€pending.€Such€seemingly€endless€sequence€ofÐ Ø( Ðinstances€and€the€repeated€failure€to€implement€decisions€are€compatible€with€the€principleÐ ¾ Ðof€a€fair€hearing.Ð ¤ô ÐÌ12.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€OptionalÐ p!À  ÐProtocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€theÐ V"¦! Ðevents€of€this€case,€in€so€far€as€they€continued€or€occurred€after€3€January€1981€(the€date€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðentry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€Peru)€disclose€a€violation€of€article€14,Ð "$r# Ðparagraph€1,€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.Ð %X $ ÐÌ13.1€The€Committee€accordingly,€is€of€the€view€that€the€State€party€is€under€an€obligation,Ð Ô&$"& Ðin€accordance€with€the€provisions€of€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€to€take€effective€measures€toÐ º' #' Ðremedy€the€violations€suffered€by€Ruben€Toribio€Munoz€Hermoza,€including€payment€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðadequate€compensation€for€the€loss€suffered.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ13.2€In€this€connection€the€Committee€welcomes€the€State€party's€commitment,€expressedÐ R+¢&+ Ðin€articles€39€and€40€of€Law€No.€23,506,€to€co„operate€with€the€Human€Rights€Committee,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðand€to€implement€its€recommendations.Ð -n(- ЇÌò òòòÓ  ÓAppendixóóó óÐ –æ ÐÓ`ÓÌÌòòIndividual€Opinion:€submitted€by€Messrs.€Joseph€A.€Cooray,€Vojin€Dimitrjevic€andÐ H˜ ÐRajsoomer€Lallah€pursuant€to€rule€94,€paragraph€3,€Of€the€Committee's€provisional€rules€ofÐ . ~ Ðprocedure,€concerning€the€Views€of€the€Committee€on€communication€No.€203/1986,€MunozÐ  d Ðv,€PeruóóÐ ú J ÐÌ1.€We€agree€with€the€conclusion€reached€by€the€Committee€but€also€for€other€reasons.Ð Æ   ÐÌ2.€In€the€absence€of€any€response€from€the€State€party€under€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€theÐ ’â  ÐOptional€Protocol,€the€allegations€of€the€author€remain€uncontested;€and€they€are,€inÐ xÈ  Ðsubstance,€that:Ð ^®  ÐÌ(a)€He€had€for€20€years€been€a€member€of€the€Guardia€Civil€of€Peru,€a€post€in€the€publicÐ *z  Ðservice€of€his€country,€access€to€which€is€guaranteed€under€article€25€(c)€of€the€Covenant;Ð ` ÐÌ(b)€He€was,€at€an€initial€stage,€temporarily€suspended€from€his€post€and€was€investigated€onÐ Ü, Ða€charge€of€having€insulted€a€superior€officer;€the€case€against€him€was€not€sustained;Ð Â ÐÌ(c)€Nevertheless,€some€five€years€later€he€was€permanently€discharged€from€the€service.Ð ŽÞ ÐThere€is€no€indication€that€he€was€given€a€hearing€before€the€administrative€decision€wasÐ tÄ Ðtaken€to€suspend€him,€nor€is€there€any€indication€that€disciplinary€proceedings€were€broughtÐ Zª Ðagainst€him€after€the€criminal€investigation€had€been€closed.€What€is€certain€is€that€theÐ @ ÐMinistry€of€the€Interior€declined€to€consider€an€appeal€against€the€1978€decision€to€dischargeÐ &v Ðhim.€He€appears€to€have€all€the€time€been€treated€as€guilty€while€officially€being€temporarilyÐ  \ Ðsuspended.€This€amounted€to€a€continued€violation€of€his€right€to€be€presumed€innocent€(art.Ð òB Ð14,€para.€2)€and€to€be€treated€accordingly€until€proceedings€or,€failing€that,€disciplinaryÐ Ø( Ðproceedings€were€concluded€against€him.€These€proceedings€were€apparently€not€initiated;Ð ¾ ÐÌ(d)€Having€failed€to€obtain€administrative€redress,€he€continued€to€seek€redress€from€theÐ Š Ú Ðcourts;Ð p!À  ÐÌ(e)€A€conflict,€which€the€State€party€has€regrettably€not€sought€to€elucidate,€appears€to€haveÐ <#Œ" Ðemerged€between€the€decisions€of€the€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees,€which€hadÐ "$r# Ðruled€in€his€favour,€and€of€the€Civil€Chamber€of€the€Supreme€Court.€Following€the€decisionÐ %X $ Ðof€the€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees,€the€Superior€Court€of€Cuzco€decided€the€meritsÐ î%>!% Ðof€the€case€in€the€author's€favour,€ordering€his€reinstatement,€but€the€Civil€Chamber€of€theÐ Ô&$"& ÐSupreme€Court€reversed€this€decision€on€a€special€appeal,€granted€òòex€officio€óóand€out€of€time,Ð º' #' Ðand€based€on€a€procedural€point,€which€the€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees€hadÐ  (ð#( Ðalready€examined€and€decided€in€a€different€manner;Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ(f)€Quite€apart€from€the€baffling€conflict€between€the€decisions€of€the€Supreme€Court€andÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantees,€there€remains€also€the€significant€failure€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐSupreme€Court€to€grant€the€author€a€hearing€before€reviewing€the€decision€of€the€SuperiorÐ -n(- ÐCourt€of€Cuzco.Ð ° ÐÌ3.€The€principles€of€a€fair€hearing,€known€in€some€systems€as€the€rules€of€natural€justice,€andÐ |Ì Ðguaranteed€under€article€14,€paragraph€1€of€the€Covenant,€include€the€concept€of€òòaudiÐ b² Ðalteram€partem.€óóThose€principles€were€violated€because€it€would€appear€that€the€author€wasÐ H˜ Ðdeprived€of€a€hearing€both€by€the€administrative€authorities,€which€were€responsible€for€theÐ . ~ Ðdecisions€to€suspend€him€and,€later,€to€discharge€him,€and€by€the€Supreme€Court,€when€itÐ  d Ðreversed€the€earlier€decision€which€had€been€favourable€to€him.€Furthermore,€as€observedÐ ú J Ðin€paragraph€2€(c)€above,€the€apparent€absence€of€criminal€or€disciplinary€proceedingsÐ à 0 Ðestablishing€his€guilt€ran€counter€to€the€presumption€of€innocence€embodied€in€article€14,Ð Æ   Ðparagraph€2,€of€the€Covenant€and€was€equally€at€variance€with€the€administrativeÐ ¬ ü  Ðconsequences€that€normally€follow€from€that€presumption.Ð ’â  ÐÌ4.€It€is€also€clear€that,€with€regard€to€such€a€simple€matter€as€that€concerning€theÐ ^®  Ðreinstatement€of€a€public€official€who€had€been€unjustifiably€dismissed,€the€obligationsÐ D”  Ðundertaken€by€the€State€party€under€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a)€and€(c),€of€the€Covenant,€wereÐ *z  Ðunaccountably€violated€because€neither€the€administrative€nor€the€judicial€authorities€of€theÐ ` ÐState€party€found€it€possible,€over€a€period€spanning€a€decade,€to€provide€the€author€with€anÐ öF Ðappropriate€remedy€and€to€enforce€that€remedy.Ð Ü, ÐÌJoseph€A.€COORAYÐ ¨ø ÐVojin€DIMITRIJEVICÐ ŽÞ ÐRajsoomer€LALLAHÐ tÄ ÐÌÌòòIndividual€opinion:€submitted€by€Mr,€Bertil€Wennergren€pursuant€to€rule€94,€paragraph€3,Ð &v Ðof€the€Committee's€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€concerning€the€views€of€the€CommitteeÐ  \ Ðon€communication€No.€203/1986,€Munoz€v.€PeruóóÐ òB ÐÌ1.€I€concur€in€the€views€expressed€by€the€majority€of€the€Committee€with€regard€to€theÐ ¾ Ðviolation€of€article€14€of€the€Covenant€but€want€to€add€the€following€considerations€withÐ ¤ô Ðregard€to€article€25€(c)€of€the€Covenant.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ2.€From€the€judgement€of€20€May€1986€of€the€Tribunal€of€Constitutional€Guarantee€itÐ V"¦! Ðappears€that€Mr.€Munoz,€by€administrative€decision€No.€2437„78„GC/DP€of€25€SeptemberÐ <#Œ" Ð1978,€was€suspended€from€service€on€disciplinary€grounds€(for€the€alleged€offence€ofÐ "$r# Ðinsulting€a€superior)€and€placed€at€the€disposal€of€the€Fourth€Judicial€Zone€of€the€Police.€ByÐ %X $ Ðadministrative€decision€No.€3020„78„GC/DP€of€25€November€1978,€the€Administration€ofÐ î%>!% Ðthe€Peruvian€Guardia€Civil€refused€to€cancel€the€suspension€order.€By€decision€No.€0165„84„Ð Ô&$"& ÐGD€of€30€January€1984,€Mr.€Munoz€was€definitively€discharged€from€service€under€theÐ º' #' Ðprovisions€of€article€27€of€Decree€Law€No.€18081.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ3.€The€Court€of€First€Instance€of€Cuzco,€in€its€decision€of€18€March€1985,€declared€all€theÐ l*¼%* Ðaforementioned€decisions€null€and€void.€In€its€findings€it€stated,€òòinter€alia,€óóthat€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðinvestigation€ordered€by€the€Supreme€Council€of€Military€Justice€against€Mr.€Munoz€on€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcharge€of€having€insulted€a€superior€did€not€establish€that€he€had€committed€any€punishableÐ -n(- Ðoffence.€The€Court€considered€in€this€connection€Supreme€Decree€No.€1056„68„GP,€whichÐ ° Ðstipulates€that€a€member€the€Guardia€Civil€"shall€be€discharged€only€following€a€conviction"Ð –æ Ðand€noted€that€Mr.€Munoz€had€no€previous€record,€neither€criminal€nor€judicial,€and€that€heÐ |Ì Ðhad€shown€irreproachable€conduct€and€had€obtained€sufficient€merits,€demonstratingÐ b² Ðdiscipline€and€capacity.€By€decision€of€24€September€1987,€the€Superior€Court€of€CuzcoÐ H˜ Ðconfirmed€the€judgement€of€the€Court€of€First€Instance€and€ordered€that€Mr.€Munoz€shouldÐ . ~ Ðbe€reinstated€in€his€post€with€all€benefits.€None€of€these€Court€decisions€have€become€final,Ð  d Ðbut€the€Supreme€Court€has€not€considered€them€on€the€merits€but€reversed€them€by€rejectingÐ ú J ÐMr.€Munoz's€actions€of€òòamparo€óóon€procedural€grounds.€There€is,€however,€no€reason€toÐ à 0 Ðbelieve€that€the€Supreme€Court€could€have€arrived€at€a€different€conclusion€on€the€meritsÐ Æ   Ðthan€that€arrived€at€by€the€lower€courts.€On€the€contrary,€it€is€reasonable€to€assume€that€itÐ ¬ ü  Ðcould€not€have€decided€otherwise,€particularly€considering€that€the€State€party€has€notÐ ’â  Ðcontested€the€merits€of€the€decisions,€and€the€Prosecutor€General,€in€a€written€opinion€datedÐ xÈ  Ð7€March€1988,€has€stated€that€the€decision€of€24€September€1987€is€valid.Ð ^®  ÐÌ4.€Thus,€in€my€view,€it€is€evident€that€the€suspension€and€discharge€of€Mr.€Munoz€from€theÐ *z  ÐPeruvian€Guardia€Civil€were€not€founded€upon€objective€and€justifiable€grounds.€WhateverÐ ` Ðthe€ground€may€have€been,€whether,€for€instance,€political€or€merely€subjective,€it€wasÐ öF Ðarbitrary.€To€suspend€and€discharge€someone€arbitrarily,€from€public€service€and€to€refuseÐ Ü, Ðhim€reinstatement,€just€as€arbitrarily,€constitutes,€in€my€opinion,€a€violation€of€his€right,Ð Â Ðunder€article€25€(c)€of€the€Covenant,€to€have€access€on€general€terms€of€equality€to€publicÐ ¨ø Ðservice.€In€this€context€reference€should€be€made€to€the€Committee's€views€in€case€No.Ð ŽÞ Ð198/1985,€where€it€observed€"that€Uruguayan€public€officials€dismissed€on€ideological,Ð tÄ Ðpolitical€or€trade€union€grounds€were€victims€of€violations€of€article€25€of€the€Covenant".Ð Zª ÐÌ5.€I€am€therefore€of€the€view€that€the€events€in€this€case€disclose€a€violation€not€only€ofÐ &v Ðarticle€14,€but€also€of€article€25€(c)€of€the€Covenant.Ð  \ ÐÌBertil€WENNERGREN