Lagos del Campo v. Peru, Case No. 12.795, Judgment of August 31, 2017. threshold for protection in the context of labor and elections, and v) the employer failed to show an imperative need to protect its rights to reputation and honor in the particular case. The ruling does not explicitly indicate that the rights at stake and / or their consequences have been properly evaluated in the analysis of the necessity requirement.(p. 41 #130). 6. What evidence did the court use to substantiate its decision on issues related to resources? The court considered rights guaranteed by international instruments as well as the Peruvian state constitution, and analyzing the extent to which the domestic judicial processes afforded to Lagos del Campo protected these rights. Evidence informing the decision included decisions by both Peruvian labor courts, records of the incident prompting the dismissal, and witness statements. While the decision does not explicitly reference the state’s use of resources, by holding that the state failed to protect against violations of ESCR by third parties, the court implicitly acknowledged that Peru in fact possessed the resources to protect his rights through its judicial system, yet failed to do so. By declaring the judicial processes afforded to Lagos del Campo to be inadequate, the Court implies that a state fails its obligation to dedicate MAR to the realization of ESCR when its existing institutions do not function properly. 7. Relevant national/international norms in which the decision was based. - Organization of American States Charter Articles 45.b and c194, 46195 and 34.g196 - American Convention on Human Rights - International Labor Organization recommendation #143 - UN Committee on ESCR General Comment No. 18 8. Cited Case Law - Segundo Tribunal de Trabajo de Lima. Sentencia 08-0891 de 8 de agosto de 1991 - Caso Castillo Petruzzi y otros Vs. Perú, supra, párr. 207 y Caso Lopez Lone y otros Vs. Honduras, supra, párr. 214 - “La Última Tentación de Cristo” (Olmedo Bustos y otros) Vs. Chile, supra, párr. 69 - López Lone y otros Vs. Honduras, supra, párr. 168. 163 Cfr. TEDH, - Caso Fuentes Bobo Vs. España, Sentencia de 29 de febrero de 2000, supra, párr. 42 y TEDH. - Caso Palomo Sánchez y otros vs. España [GS], supra, párr. 63. 164 Cfr. TEDH. - Caso Heinisch vs. Alemania. No. 28274/08. Sentencia de 21 de julio de 2011. Párr. 91 y TEDH. - Caso Palomo Sánchez vs. España [GS], supra, párrs. 75 y 76; y Declaración pericial de Damián Loreti (transcripción audiencia pgs. 43 a 44).