## Facts

- Private citizens initiated both a criminal action and a labor action against Avon Products, Inc. in courts of the Dominican Republic.
- The labor dispute proceeded in the Second Chamber Labor Court of the National District, which entered a judgment against Avon.
- Avon petitioned the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic for a “writ of protection” (an amparo-type constitutional remedy).
- Avon alleged that the Second Chamber Labor Court’s handling of the labor matter violated Avon’s constitutional rights, including due process.
- At the time of Avon’s petition, Dominican law did not expressly recognize a writ of protection and did not provide a defined procedure for obtaining such relief.
- Avon argued that the American Convention on Human Rights supported recognition of a judicial remedy capable of protecting fundamental rights when ordinary procedures were inadequate or unavailable.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court could recognize and entertain an amparo-type writ of protection even though Dominican legislation had not expressly created the action or set its procedure.
2. Whether the American Convention on Human Rights could serve as a domestic basis for requiring an effective judicial remedy to protect fundamental rights.
3. Whether alleged due-process violations in a labor court proceeding could be reviewed through a writ of protection directed at judicial acts of the lower court.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Justice recognized the availability of a writ of protection as a means to seek judicial protection of fundamental rights, despite the absence of express statutory regulation at the time.
- The Court treated constitutional guarantees and the state’s commitments under the American Convention on Human Rights as requiring an effective judicial mechanism to protect rights.
- The Court accepted that the writ of protection could be invoked to challenge actions in judicial proceedings—including labor proceedings—when they were alleged to have violated constitutional rights such as due process.

## Legal Principles

- Fundamental rights protections are not merely declaratory; they must be accompanied by an effective judicial remedy when a violation is alleged.
- International human rights obligations (including the American Convention on Human Rights) may be applied by domestic courts to require meaningful judicial protection for rights and to address gaps where domestic procedure provides no adequate remedy.
- A high court may recognize an amparo-type protection action to review alleged rights violations committed in the course of lower-court proceedings, including claims of due-process violations.

## Conclusion

Avon Products sought Supreme Court relief from an adverse labor judgment by requesting a writ of protection that Dominican law had not yet expressly regulated. In Sent. No. 40394 (1999), the Dominican Supreme Court recognized an amparo-like writ of protection and relied on constitutional guarantees and the American Convention on Human Rights to justify an effective judicial remedy capable of addressing alleged due-process violations arising from lower-court proceedings.


Avon Products, Inc. v. Second Chamber Labor Court of the National District, Sent. No. 40394 (1999)