Nina Cáceres Ramos, quien se desempeña como jueza unipersonal de la Corte
Superior, solicita el cese inmediato de la vulneración de su derecho al disfrute
del tiempo libre, libre desarrollo de la personalidad y derecho al trabajo mediante
la interposición de un proceso de amparo. Argumenta que, a pesar que la
Presidencia de la Corte le otorgó el permiso de lactancia materna que le
correspondía por ley, en la práctica dicho permiso no se respetó. Se le
reprogramaron audiencias durante este periodo, incluyendo altas horas de la
noche y fines de semana. Esta situación era de conocimiento de los funcionarios,
quienes alegan que la programación de audiencias en esos horarios busca una
mayor celeridad del sistema penal.
La controversia gira en torno a si se vulneró el derecho a la igualdad de la jueza,
especialmente en su dimensión sustantiva. Aunque este permiso está recogido
por numerosos instrumentos, se concluye que las prácticas arraigadas y las
medidas emitidas por los funcionarios no consideraron la situación de la
demandante ni brindaron condiciones adecuadas atendiendo su estado. Para
resolver el problema principal se desarrollan como problemas secundarios el
principio de igualdad, la actuación de los funcionarios públicos y su relación con
el buen gobierno, y finalmente la resolución de fondo del Tribunal Constitucional,
quien resuelve el recurso de agravio constitucional interpuesto tras la sentencia
que declara infundado el amparo.
Para la resolución y desarrollo de los problemas planteados, se consultará la
Constitución Política del Perú, las leyes y jurisprudencia nacional relacionada,
así como opiniones, directivas e instrumentos internacionales aplicables a
nuestro país. / Nina Cáceres Ramos, who serves as a judge of the Superior Court, requests the
immediate cessation of the violation of her right to enjoy free time, the free
development of her personality, and labor rights through the filing of an protection
process. She argues that, despite the Court Presidency granting her the maternity
lactation leave she was entitled to by law, in practice, this leave was not
respected. Hearings were rescheduled during this period, including late at night
and on weekends. This situation was known to public officials, who argue that
scheduling hearings at those times aims to achieve greater speed in the criminal
justice system.
The controversy revolves around whether the judge's right to equality, especially
in its substantive dimension, was violated. Although this leave is recognized by
numerous instruments, it is concluded that entrenched practices and the
measures issued by the public officials did not consider the complainant's
situation nor provided adequate conditions considering her state. To resolve the
main issue, secondary issues are developed, such as the principle of equality,
the actions of public officials and their relation to good governance, and finally,
the substantive resolution of the Constitutional Court, which resolves the
constitutional grievance appeal filed after the ruling that declared the amparo
unfounded.
For the resolution and development of the issues raised, the Political Constitution
of Peru, national laws and related jurisprudence, as well as opinions, directives,
and international instruments applicable to our country, will be consulted.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PUCP/oai:tesis.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.12404/28582 |
| Date | 12 August 2024 |
| Creators | Aldave León, María de Fátima Areté |
| Contributors | Galicia Vidal, Saulo Roberto |
| Publisher | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, PE |
| Source Sets | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú |
| Language | Spanish |
| Detected Language | Spanish |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis |
| Format | application/pdf, application/pdf, application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/pe/ |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds