Caso Trabajadores Cesados De Petroperú y Otros vs. Perú, Sentence of November 23, 2017.
specifically, their right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, for failing to provide
effective judicial remedies to verify whether their labor rights had been violated.
2. Core issue(s)
Whether the State is obligated to provide judicial remedies for the violation of labor rights.
3. What was the decision? Holding & Outline of the Court’s Decision
- Court found violations of Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention on Human
Rights (regarding judicial guarantees and judicial protection), by failing to provide
adequate processes by which the workers could claim violations of their rights, thereby
denying them access to justice.
- Under Article 26, the state violated its obligation of progressivity by denying workers and
their dependents the right to social security payments guaranteed by Article 45 of the
OAS Charter. (p. 49, #134)
- Court ordered compensation to workers for pension contributions, loss of earnings, and
non-pecuniary damages. State ordered to pay all legal expenses, as well as to reimburse
the Legal Assistance Fund for Victims.
4. Key Points
- As affirmed in Lagos del Campo v. Peru, the IACHR is competent to hear and resolve
disputes relating to Article 26 (progressive development of rights) of the American
- The right to work includes the right to guaranteed access to justice and effective judicial
protection, both in the public and private spheres of labor relations.
- The arbitrary dismissal of the workers and non-reinstatement in their jobs resulted in the
cessation of accumulation of their years of service for social security purposes, which
prevented many from reaching retirement. (p. 49, #134)
5. What was the court’s reasoning in reaching its decisions?
- Court based its decision in Article 63.1 of the American Convention, which obliges the
state to provide remedies for the violation of rights protected by the Convention as well
as injunctive relief to preclude future violations (p. 54 #141).
- As the workers did not know where they could or should go to claim the labor rights they
believed had been violated, the Court determined that existing domestic remedies were
ineffective, individually or jointly, for the purpose of adequately guaranteeing the right of
access to justice, and thus the State violated Articles 8.1 and 25 of the Convention. (p. 55