IGNACIO LIVIA ROBLES
On April 27, 1998, Mr. Pablo Ignacio Livia Robles (hereinafter
“the petitioner”) filed a petition with the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the
Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) wherein he alleged that
the State of Peru (hereinafter the “State”, the “Peruvian State”
or “Peru”) had violated his right to humane treatment (Article 5),
his right to a fair trial (Article 8), his right to have his honor
respected and his dignity recognized (Article 11), his right to equal
protection under the law (Article 24) and his right to judicial
protection (Article 25), all in relation to the general obligation to
respect the rights (Article 1) established in the American Convention on
Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or the "American
The petitioner alleged that by decree law Nº 25446 of April 24,
1992, he was summarily dismissed from his post as Principal Provincial
Prosecutor of Lima; he was given no hearing of any kind prior to his
dismissal and was thus denied his right to defend himself.
The petitioner further stated that within a few days of his
dismissal, he appeared before a Lima Civil Court to petition for amparo
relief; the court refused to grant cert on the grounds that under
decree law Nº 25454 of 27 April 1992 petitions of amparo
could not be used to challenge the effects of the application of
decrees laws Nos. 25423, 25442 and 25446 to which the present petition
On February 22, 2001 the Peruvian State and the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights issued a joint press release wherein the
State undertook to promote a friendly settlement in some cases pending
before the Commission, one of them being the instant case, in keeping
with the provisions of Articles 48(1)(f) and 49 of the American
Convention on Human Rights. The
friendly settlement was reached on July 25, 2002, when the parties
signed the respective friendly settlement agreement.
The present friendly settlement report, done in conformity with
Article 49 of the Convention and Article 41(5) of the Commission’s
Rules of Procedure, contains a brief summary of the facts alleged by the
petitioner and the solution reached.
It also contains an agreement to publish the report.
PROCEEDING WITH THE COMMISSION
The petitioner filed his petition with the IACHR on April 27,
1998. It was then forwarded to the State on July 16, 1998. The
State submitted its response to the complaint on October 15, 1998.
The State’s response was sent to the parties, whereupon the
exchange of information provided for in the American Convention, in the
Statute and Rules of Procedure of the Commission got underway.
On February 22, 2001 the Peruvian State, by way of a press
release issued jointly with the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, announced that it was acknowledging its responsibility in the
present case, based on Articles 1(1), 2, 8, 23, 24 and 25 of the
Convention, and that it would “promote a friendly settlement in
keeping with the provisions of Articles (48)(1)(f) and 49 of the
Given the commitment undertaken by the State, the parties held a
number of meetings to define the terms of the agreement.
Finally, the friendly settlement was concluded on July 25, 2002
when the parties signed the agreement document in Lima.
The parties asked the Commission to ratify their friendly
settlement agreement in all its parts.
The petitioner stated that after competing for the announced
position, he won an appointment to the post of Principal Provincial
Prosecutor of Lima. The
appointment came from the Constitutional Government of Fernando Belaúnde
Terry, through Resolution Nº 061-84JUS of January 25, 1984.
The petitioner took his oath of office on February 3 of that same
year. He alleged that after eight years in office, he was, for no
reason, unjustly terminated on April 24, 1992, under decree law Nº
25446 issued by the “National Emergency and Reconstruction
Government” that emerged in the aftermath of the April 5, 1992 civil
and military coup. As no
hearing or formality of any kind was observed prior to his dismissal,
the petitioner was unable to exercise his right of self-defense.
The petitioner stated that decree Nº 25454 was issued shortly
thereafter, on April 27, 1992 and disallowed any petition of amparo
to challenge the effects of the application of Decree Law Nº 25446.
He pointed out that because of that decree law, when he appeared
before a Lima court to file the petition of amparo
the court refused to grant certiorari on the grounds that decree Nº
25454 expressly prohibited the petition of amparo
in such a case.
The petitioner observed that under the Habeas
Corpus and Amparo Act,
“the petition seeking amparo relief
must be filed within 60 working days of the matter affecting one’s
interests, provided the circumstances at the time make it possible for
the interested party to take such action; if, however, some impediment
prevents the interested party from petitioning the court for relief
within that time frame, then the time period for filing shall begin as
of the date on which the impediment is removed."
The petitioner alleged that the decrees invoked to remove him
from his post and the decree law that prevented him from exercising the amparo
remedy were the work of the Government that emerged on April 5, 1992, in
the wake of the civil military coup.
The petitioner argued that because that government remained in
place until July 28, 1995 the removal of the impediment referred to in
the Habeas Corpus and Amparo
Act occurred on that date, when free and general elections were held,
thus ending the interruption of constitutional government.
The petitioner states that he filed his petition of amparo within 60 working days of the restoration of constitutional
The petitioner also pointed out that the Sixth Lima Civil Court
declared the amparo petition
to be inadmissible on December 18, 1995 on the grounds that it was
time-barred. The Lower
Civil Court’s decision was then upheld by the First Civil Chamber of
the Supreme Court on October 31, 1996.
The petitioner then challenged that decision with the
Constitutional Tribunal, which on November 13, 1997 upheld the First
Civil Chamber’s ruling; it held that the petition was inadmissible
since, given the diffuse model of constitutionality review used in Peru,
the petitioner’s individual right was always available to him;
therefore, the remedy filed was without merit because the petitioner
failed to show that he was prevented from filing a petition seeking amparo relief." In
this connection, the petitioner made the point that criminal charges were brought against two judges on Lima’s
lower civil bench precisely because they granted certiorari to petitions
of amparo filed to challenge
the effects of decrees laws 25446 and 25454.
This was, he said, unmistakable proof of an impediment preventing
him from filing petitions of amparo
to seek relief from the effects of those laws.
petitioner alleged that he had exhausted all the remedies under domestic
law and that the remedies were denied on purely procedural grounds,
never material grounds. Those
remedies had, therefore, been ineffective in rectifying the unjust and
unlawful situation created by those decrees laws, which violated his
rights as recognized in the American Convention.
The State and the petitioners signed a friendly settlement
agreement, the text of which reads as follows:
April 24, 1992, Dr. Pablo Ignacio Livia Robles, Provincial Prosecutor
with Lima’s Thirty-sixth Criminal Prosecution Office, was removed from
his post under Decree Law Nº 25446.
He filed a petition seeking amparo
relief, which the Constitutional Tribunal declared inadmissible on
December 13, 1997.
Pablo Ignacio Livia Robles presented a petition to the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, which on July 17, 1997 opened the case under
classification number 12,035. The
petition alleged violation of the following rights: the right to humane
treatment, the right to a fair trial, the right to have one’s honor
respected and dignity recognized, the right to equality before the law,
the right to judicial protection, and the obligation to respect the
rights recognized in the American Convention (Articles 5, 8, 5, 8, 11,
24, 25 and 1).
February 22, 2001 the Peruvian State signed a joint press release with
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, wherein the State pledged
to promote a friendly settlement, which would be done in accordance with
Articles 48(1)(f) and 49 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
that unqualified protection of and respect for human rights is the
foundation of a just, decent and democratic society, in strict
compliance with the obligations
undertaken with signature and ratification of the American Convention on
Human Rights and other international human rights instruments to which
Peru is party, and conscious that any violation of an international
obligation that has resulted in damages or injury carries with it the
duty to make adequate reparation–which in the instant case means
restoring the victim to his post-, the State acknowledges its
responsibility for violation of Articles 1(1), 2, 8, 23, 24, 25 of the
American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of victim Pablo
Ignacio Livia Robles.
acknowledgement is explicitly stated in the Joint Press Release that the
Peruvian State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights signed
on February 22, 2001, wherein the Peruvian State acknowledges
international responsibility for the facts in question and undertakes to
restore the violated rights and/or make reparations for the harm caused.
Peruvian State shall pay the victim the sum of twenty thousand U.S.
dollars (US$20,000.00), as compensation for material and moral damages
and lucrum cessans. For
his part, the beneficiary pledges not to file any other claim against
the State, either directly or indirectly or by any other avenue.
Nor will the beneficiary bring suit against the Peruvian State
intended to hold it jointly and severally liable or as a third-party
defendant in a civil or any other type of action, although this shall
not impair the beneficiary’s right to pursue legal action against the
authorities or officials responsible for the arbitrary decision taken
Peruvian State agrees to restore Dr. Pablo Ignacio Livia Robles to his
post as Lima’s Principal Criminal Prosecutor, thereby nullifying the
effect of Article 3 of Decree Law
OTHER TYPES OF REPARATION
Peruvian State pledges to recognize the years of service that the victim
was unable to work because he was removed from his post. That period begins on April 24, 1992 -the date of his
dismissal- and runs to the present.
RIGHT TO BRING ACTION
Peruvian State reserves its right, under the laws currently in effect,
to bring action against those persons whom the competent national
authority finds to be the responsible parties in the instant case.
TAX EXEMPTION, PERFORMANCE and DEFAULT
pecuniary damages awarded by the Peruvian State shall not be subject to
any taxation, contribution or assessment currently in existence or
eventually created, and are to be paid within six months from the date
on which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights serves notice
that it has ratified the present agreement.
If payment is not made by the time that six-month period is up,
the State shall be in default and shall pay the maximum compensatory
interest rate that domestic law provides for and/or allows for cases of
present agreement is signed in conformity with the provisions of
Articles 2 (paragraphs 1 and 24, subparagraph h), 44, 55, 205 of
Peru’s Constitution and its Fourth Final Transitory Provision;
Articles 1205, 1306, 1969, 1981 of Peru’s Civil Code; Articles 1, 2
and 48(1)(f) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 41
of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human
meaning and scope of the present Agreement are interpreted in accordance
with Articles 29 and 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
where pertinent, and the principle of good faith.
In the event of any doubt or disagreement between the parties
concerning the content of the agreement, the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights will decide what the interpretation shall be.
The Commission shall also verify compliance with the agreement,
for which purpose the parties shall be required to report to the
Commission every three months on its status and performance.
parties to this agreement undertake to bring this friendly settlement
agreement to the attention of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, so that the latter might confirm and ratify it in all its parts.
ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
parties signing this agreement state that of their own free will they
agree with and accept the terms of each and every clause of this
agreement, and expressly stipulate that this agreement settles the
dispute between them and any claim concerning the Peruvian State’s
international responsibility for the human rights violations of which
Mr. Pablo Ignacio Livia Robles was victim.
in quadruplicate, in the city of Lima, the twenty-fifth day of the month
of July in the year two thousand two.
DETERMINATION OF COMPATIBILITY AND COMPLIANCE
The IACHR observes that under Articles 48(1)(f) and 49 of the
Convention, this procedure is done “with a
view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of
respect for the human rights recognized in this Convention.” The State’s consent to
pursue this avenue is evidence of its good faith to honor the
Convention’s purposes and objectives, based on the principle of pacta
,According to that principle, States must perform the obligations
undertaken in treaties in good faith.
The IACHR also wishes to point out, once again, that with the
friendly settlement procedure provided for in the Convention, individual
cases can be settled in a non-contentious manner. In cases involving a
number of countries, the friendly settlement arrangement has proven to
be a useful vehicle that both parties can use to advantage.
The Inter-American Commission has closely monitored the
development of the friendly settlement arrived at in the present case.
The Commission greatly appreciates the efforts that both parties
made to reach this settlement, which is compatible with the object and
purpose of the Convention.
For all the
foregoing reasons and in keeping with the procedure provided for in
Articles 48(1)(f) and 49 of the American Convention, the Commission
would like to state that it is very grateful for the efforts made by the
parties and is pleased that the friendly settlement arrived at in the
present case is consistent with the object and purpose of the American
For the reasons and
based on the conclusions explained in this report,
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,
To approve the terms of the friendly settlement agreement that
the parties signed on July 25, 2002.
To continue to monitor and supervise each and every point of the
friendly settlement agreement; accordingly, to remind the parties of
their obligation to report to the IACHR every three months on the
performance of this friendly settlement.
To make the present report public and include it in the
Commission’s annual report to the OAS General Assembly.
Done and signed at the headquarters of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the city of Washington,
D.C., this 13th day of the month of December in the year 2002.
(Signed): Juan Méndez, President; Marta Altolaguirre, Second
Vice President; Commission members Robert K. Goldman, Julio Prado
Vallejo, Clare Kamau Roberts and José Zalaquett.
In compliance with Article 17(2)(a) of the Commission’s Rules of
Procedure, Commission member
Susana Villarán, a Peruvian national, did not participate in
the discussion of or vote on this Report.
Article 2 of Decree Law Nº 25454, of April 27, 1992, provides that
“petitions seeking amparo
relief to challenge the effects of the application of decrees laws
25423, 25442 and 25446 are impermissible."
Law Nº 23506, Habeas Corpus
and Amparo Act, Peru,