Case: Baena Ricardo and others v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs

Descriptors: Due Process / Judicial guarantees / Effective remedy

In December 1990, by Law number 25, the dismissal of 270 public sector employees, as well as union leaders, was approved for having vindicated their labor rights in protests and demonstrations directed against government policy. A justified decision by the Executive Power in the alleged complicity of the protesters with a military coup.

First, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights considers the violation of Article 9 of the Convention, relative to the principle of legality and non-retroactivity, since Law 25 only contained a broad and imprecise concept of the illicit conducts that gave rise to dismissal, referring to them as acts contrary to the law. democracy and constitutional order. Furthermore, the aforementioned Law was applied retroactively to situations that occurred prior to its entry into force.

For the purposes of judicial independence and due process, the Inter-American Court establishes that the guarantees of due process do not apply only in the judicial sphere, but also in the public administration's sphere, especially in non-criminal administrative processes. The fact that the officials did not had a disciplinary procedure prior to their sanction, that is, to their dismissal, is, therefore, considered by the Court as a violation of Article 8.1 of the Convention. An article that it also considers violated, together with 8.2 and 25 of the Convention in the field of the judicial process that heard the litigation, because the pertinent judicial guarantees were not granted to the appellants, among which is the right to an effective remedy.

Read the decision