Complaint for violation of the rights to property, judicial protection and obligation of progressive development. Violation of the right to judicial protection due to non-compliance with final judicial sentences. Violation of the right to property due to a decrease in the amount of the pension.
A group of retirees denounced the Peruvian State before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Then, the IACHR filed a lawsuit before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for violation of the rights to private property, judicial protection, and the obligation to progressively develop social rights. Those affected had worked as officials of a state entity that had its own pension fund. Once they retired, the entity arbitrarily reduced the pension amounts to a fifth or sixth of their nominal value, and despite achieving favorable rulings, none of them could be executed. The IACHR denounced the non-compliance with these rulings and the Court ruled that Peru violated the rights to private property and judicial protection by arbitrarily modifying the amount of pensions and failing to comply with the judicial rulings issued. However, it rejected the violation of the obligation of progressive development of social rights considering that there was no generalized situation of impact on the right to social security, but only with respect to a specific group. Because the State had taken several measures to comply with the claims of the IACHR and the victims, the Court declared that the patrimonial consequences that the violation of the right to private property could have should be established, in the terms of domestic legislation, by the competent national bodies. Finally, it decided that the State should apply the pertinent sanctions to those responsible for disobeying court rulings and pay the victims an amount for the moral damage suffered.
On September 12, 2005, the Inter-American Court determined that the State had not complied with any of the reparations provided in the Judgment of February 28, 2003 and ordered its compliance. In addition, the Court asked the State to present a report on compliance with the ordered reparations, no later than November 30, 2005.
The Inter-American Court recognized that the degradation of the right to social security constitutes a violation of the American Convention on Human Rights. This right was protected through the rights to property and judicial protection. Unfortunately, the Court interpreted the obligation of progressivity in a restrictive manner and opposite to the interpretation made by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Plaintiffs: Human Rights Program of the Labor Assistance Center of Peru (CEDAL) (http://www.cedal.org.pe), Association for Human Rights (APRODEH) (http://www.aprodeh.org.pe) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) (http://www.cejil.org) on behalf of Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Alvarez Fernández, Reymer Bartra Vásquez and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreira .
Respondent: Peruvian State.
