States are responsible for the lack of labor rights

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has declared Ecuador internationally responsible for violating the rights to a fair trial, judicial protection, and labor rights, against Félix Humberto Peralta Armijos, a former official at the National Fisheries Institute.

The judges found that Ecuador violated a 2003 court ruling in favor of Peralta Armijos in the process he initiated to appeal the administrative decision appointing another person to the position for which he had requested consideration.

Furthermore, the Court found the arbitrariness of the domestic courts' refusal to order payment of the unpaid wages of Peralta Armijos, in the context of another legal proceeding he initiated to challenge his dismissal as an official of the National Fisheries Institute.

The Court determined that Ecuador violated Articles 8(1), 25(1), 25(2)(c), and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1(1) of the same international instrument.

For these violations, the State was ordered to implement various reparation measures, including the payment of a sum of money to Peralta Armijos for the non-reimbursement of unpaid wages during his dismissal from his position as a public servant, as well as the regularization of his retirement system in light of the contributions not made during that period.

“Consistent with the restorative nature of the measure, in Inter-American jurisprudence, when hearing cases involving the arbitrary dismissal of workers, the Court has determined that, regardless of the eventual reinstatement of the victims to their jobs and the corresponding payment of the compensation to which they are entitled, it is appropriate, necessary, and fair, in order to fully repair the damages caused by the unlawful dismissal, that payment also be ordered for the wages they had failed to receive during the entire time they were removed from the position they were holding,” the ruling emphasized.

Furthermore, “the domestic legislation in force at the time of the events recognized, as a right of the worker, the reparation measure consisting of payment of the wages they had failed to receive as a result of the arbitrary dismissal from their jobs.”