Congress approved – in a second vote – a law that limits the scope of crimes once morest humanity and war crimes regarding events that occurred before 2002. This happened despite the institutional rejection of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and a resolution from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) opposing the text.
The decision was adopted by the Permanent Commission, a parliamentary body with legislative power during recess, with 15 votes in favor, 12 once morest, and no abstentions. The majority was once more supported by Fuerza Popular, Alianza para el Progreso (APP), and Honor y Democracia.
After approval, the bill must be sent to the Executive branch, headed by President Dina Boluarte, to be promulgated or, if not, observed and returned to Congress.
At the same session, a motion for reconsideration was proposed, but it was rejected with 15 votes.
What is proposed and the questions
The initiative, promoted by parliamentarians Fernando Rospigliosi (Popular Force) and Jose Cueto (Honor and Democracy), had already been approved – in the first vote – on June 6 in a tumultuous plenary session.
The proposed law seeks to clarify that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court only entered into force in the Peruvian legal system on July 1, 2002; and the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes once morest Humanity entered into force on November 9, 2003.
“No one shall be prosecuted, convicted or punished for crimes once morest humanity or war crimes for acts committed prior to 1 July 2002, under penalty of nullity and functional liability. No act prior to that date may be classified as a crime once morest humanity or war crime,” the approved text states.
This is the text on crimes once morest humanity approved in Congress
Following the initial approval in early June, the Board of Supreme Prosecutors issued a statement rejecting the initiative, describing it as “legally unviable” and even “unconstitutional.” It noted that crimes once morest humanity and war crimes “are not subject to a statute of limitations” and that “it would generate impunity and a violation of the right to the truth of the aggrieved and their families.”
If the law is applied, it was stressed, the statute of limitations would be declared in some 600 cases, including El Frontón, Barrios Altos, Putis, Chuschi, among others. This includes cases where sentences have already been issued.
Earlier this week, the IACHR issued a resolution requiring the Peruvian State not to give effect to the bill “in order to guarantee the right of access to justice” for the victims of the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta cases.
“This would constitute a contempt of the Court’s order to Peru regarding the prohibition of applying the statute of limitations in the investigation, prosecution and punishment of conduct that, beyond the classification in domestic law, constitute crimes once morest humanity, committed during the period extending from the beginning of the 1980s to the end of 2000,” the resolution stated.
The replica
Unlike the first vote, this time there were no major interventions or blockages. Before putting the issue up for debate, the president of the Constitutional Commission, Martha Moyano (Fuerza Popular), stated that “this law is not intended to be an amnesty, as has been maliciously insinuated.”
“Nor does it imply a lack of recognition of the Peruvian State’s commitments in terms of human rights; the only effect is to clarify that the norms, especially the penal ones, are not applied retroactively. Because a retroactive application violates due process and the right of defense of the accused. Likewise, the approval of this opinion does not exempt us from compliance with international obligations.“, said the parliamentarian.
The only parliamentarian who spoke was Isabel Cortez (Cambio Democrático – JP), who was once morest the proposal and said that “a bill with a name and surname” was being prioritized. No other legislator spoke, despite the 12 votes once morest it followingwards.
After the approval, Fernando Rospigliosi (Fuerza Popular) stressed in the Hall of the Lost Steps that “it is illegal” to have applied the criteria of crimes once morest humanity in events that occurred before 2002. He said that there are “hundreds” of cases in which, following the promulgation of the law, they should be annulled, in the case of trials, and released, in the case of people who are detained, respectively.
“There are hundreds of police officers and soldiers, many of them in their eighties and nineties, who are unjustly imprisoned or subjected to the torture of endless trials due to the illegal application of this criterion of crimes once morest humanity that can only be applied since its approval in Congress in 2002 and 2003.″, he stressed.
Meanwhile, legislator José Cueto (Honor and Democracy) said he was confident that the law would be promulgated by the Executive.
The President of Congress, Alejandro Soto, said that “in defense of the sovereignty of the Peruvian State and parliamentary jurisdiction,” the aforementioned project was put up for debate and approved. “Once once more, we enforced Article 93 of our Magna Carta,” he stressed.
“This Congress rejects interference from international organizations. In defense of the sovereignty of the Peruvian State and parliamentary jurisdiction, the second vote of the opinion was put up for debate and approved (…). Once once more, we enforced Article 93 of our Constitution: ‘Congressmen represent the Nation. They are not subject to imperative mandate or interpellation.‘” he wrote on his social networks.
For her part, legislator Ruth Luque (Cambio Democrático – JP) said on her X account (formerly Twitter) that the law “is a direct threat to justice.”
“And it generates impunity to free those involved in very serious cases of human rights violations such as the Accomarca, El Frontón, Cayara, Los Cabitos, Cashahui cases, among others. Let the international community know that covert amnesty laws have been installed in Peru.“, he said.
point of view
For the former president of the Constitutional Court (TC), Ernesto Álvarez, there is no black and white in such a complex case. In his opinion, the Congress’ proposal is a good idea because it opens the door to reviewing possible excesses. However, he also considered that the approved text “is a mistake.”
He considered that the issue will be challenged before the TC and that it will be there where “a fine line must be drawn”, according to the jurisprudence, but also “trying to integrate the principles of international law with the principles of criminal law. Neither is superior to the other.” Álvarez stressed the need to review it case by case, since there are cases where the figure of crimes once morest humanity was applied without constituting it, but also others in which it would constitute it.
“If it is a matter of reviewing, it is a good idea because any type of injustice, in one sense or another, has to be remedied. And what better than to review all these cases where there are police officers and military personnel who have been sentenced. But with that idea, integrating the principles of international law with criminal law and trying to establish fair criteria based on the figure of crimes once morest humanity. Not every violation of human rights constitutes a violation of crimes once morest humanity,” he said in dialogue with Trade.
KEEP IN MIND:
- Congressman Wilson Soto (Acción Popular) submitted a letter requesting to change the direction of his vote—from in favor to once morest—on the bill in question. However, his request was declared inadmissible.
- The judicial power rejected the statute of limitations for the crime of criminal association once morest Alberto FujimoriVladimiro Montesinos and others for the Pativilca and Cantuta Case.
- “The alleged acts, classified as criminal conspiracy, to the extent that they are linked to serious human rights violations, may also be considered crimes once morest humanity”a courtroom indicated.
Peru Congress Approves Law Limiting Scope of Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes
The Peruvian Congress, in a controversial move, has approved a law that limits the scope of crimes once morest humanity and war crimes for events that took place before 2002. This legislation has received significant backlash from institutions like the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), who argue that it promotes impunity and undermines justice for victims of human rights violations.
The decision, passed by the Permanent Commission, a parliamentary body with legislative power during recesses, garnered 15 votes in favor, 12 once morest, and no abstentions. The majority vote was once once more supported by Fuerza Popular, Alianza para el Progreso (APP), and Honor y Democracia.
Following approval, the bill will be sent to President Dina Boluarte to be either promulgated or, if rejected, observed and returned to Congress.
A reconsideration was proposed at the same session but ultimately rejected with 15 votes once morest.
What the Proposed Law Enacts
The initiative, spearheaded by parliamentarians Fernando Rospigliosi (Popular Force) and Jose Cueto (Honor and Democracy), had already been approved in a first vote on June 6th. The bill aims to clarify that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a crucial international agreement, only came into effect in Peru on July 1, 2002. Similarly, the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes once morest Humanity was implemented in Peru on November 9, 2003.
“No one shall be prosecuted, convicted or punished for crimes once morest humanity or war crimes for acts committed prior to 1 July 2002, under penalty of nullity and functional liability. No act prior to that date may be classified as a crime once morest humanity or war crime,” the approved text states.
Institutional Opposition and Concerns
Following the initial approval in early June, the Board of Supreme Prosecutors issued a strong statement rejecting the initiative, deeming it “legally unviable” and even “unconstitutional.” The statement underscores that crimes once morest humanity and war crimes are not subject to a statute of limitations, and that this legislation would lead to impunity and violate the right to truth for victims and their families.
If the law is implemented, it is estimated that the statute of limitations would be declared in approximately 600 cases, including prominent incidents such as El Frontón, Barrios Altos, Putis, and Chuschi. The law’s implications extend even to cases where convictions have already been secured.
Further compounding concerns, the IACHR issued a resolution earlier this week, urging the Peruvian State to refrain from enacting the bill to ensure access to justice for victims of the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta cases. This resolution highlights that implementing the bill would constitute a violation of the Court’s previous order to Peru regarding the prohibition of applying the statute of limitations for crimes once morest humanity committed during the period from the early 1980s to the end of 2000.
“This would constitute a contempt of the Court’s order to Peru regarding the prohibition of applying the statute of limitations in the investigation, prosecution and punishment of conduct that, beyond the classification in domestic law, constitute crimes once morest humanity, committed during the period extending from the beginning of the 1980s to the end of 2000,” the resolution stated.
Responses and Defense of the Law
In contrast to the first vote, the second vote saw fewer interventions and blockages. Prior to the debate, Martha Moyano, the president of the Constitutional Commission and a member of Fuerza Popular, emphasized that “this law is not intended to be an amnesty, as has been maliciously insinuated.”
“Nor does it imply a lack of recognition of the Peruvian State’s commitments in terms of human rights; the only effect is to clarify that the norms, especially the penal ones, are not applied retroactively. Because a retroactive application violates due process and the right of defense of the accused. Likewise, the approval of this opinion does not exempt us from compliance with international obligations.“, said Moyano.
Isabelle Cortez, representing Cambio Democrático – JP, was the sole parliamentarian to voice opposition, stating that the proposal prioritized a “bill with a name and surname.” Despite the 12 votes once morest the law, no further speeches were delivered.
Post-approval, Fernando Rospigliosi (Fuerza Popular) declared in the Hall of the Lost Steps that applying criteria of crimes once morest humanity to events prior to 2002 was “illegal.” He asserted that “hundreds” of cases, following the law’s promulgation, would require annulment for trials and release for detained individuals.
“There are hundreds of police officers and soldiers, many of them in their eighties and nineties, who are unjustly imprisoned or subjected to the torture of endless trials due to the illegal application of this criterion of crimes once morest humanity that can only be applied since its approval in Congress in 2002 and 2003.″, he stressed.
Jose Cueto (Honor and Democracy) expressed confidence that the Executive would ultimately approve the law.
Alejandro Soto, President of Congress, defended the law, stating that it upholds parliamentary jurisdiction and the sovereignty of the Peruvian State. “In defense of the sovereignty of the Peruvian State and parliamentary jurisdiction, the second vote of the opinion was put up for debate and approved (…). Once once more, we enforced Article 93 of our Constitution: ‘Congressmen represent the Nation. They are not subject to imperative mandate or interpellation.‘” he wrote on his social networks.
Ruth Luque (Cambio Democrático – JP) took to X, formerly Twitter, to characterize the legislation as a “direct threat to justice.”
“And it generates impunity to free those involved in very serious cases of human rights violations such as the Accomarca, El Frontón, Cayara, Los Cabitos, Cashahui cases, among others. Let the international community know that covert amnesty laws have been installed in Peru.“, she said.
Expert Perspective
Ernesto Álvarez, former president of the Constitutional Court (TC), offered a nuanced perspective on the complexity of the situation. While acknowledging that the Congress’ proposal might be beneficial in reviewing potential excesses, he also stated that the approved text “is a mistake.”
He anticipates the issue being challenged before the TC and believes that the Court must “draw a fine line” based on existing jurisprudence, integrating principles of international law with those of criminal law. He emphasized the need for case-by-case review, recognizing that while some cases may have misapplied the figure of crimes once morest humanity, others genuinely merit its application.
“If it is a matter of reviewing, it is a good idea because any type of injustice, in one sense or another, has to be remedied. And what better than to review all these cases where there are police officers and military personnel who have been sentenced. But with that idea, integrating the principles of international law with criminal law and trying to establish fair criteria based on the figure of crimes once morest humanity. Not every violation of human rights constitutes a violation of crimes once morest humanity,” he said in dialogue with Trade.
Key Takeaways
- Congressman Wilson Soto (Acción Popular) submitted a letter requesting to change his vote—from in favor to once morest—on the bill in question. However, his request was declared inadmissible.
- The judicial power rejected the statute of limitations for the crime of criminal association once morest Alberto FujimoriVladimiro Montesinos and others for the Pativilca and Cantuta Case.
- “The alleged acts, classified as criminal conspiracy, to the extent that they are linked to serious human rights violations, may also be considered crimes once morest humanity”a courtroom indicated.
