In a controversial move, Peru has passed legislation granting amnesty to security forces accused of severe violations between 1980 and 2000. This revival of Law N° 32419 has drawn sharp criticism from United Nations human rights experts, who express alarm at the erosion of accountability in a nation still grappling with its past. The law shields members of the Armed Forces, the Peruvian National Police, and Self-Defense Committees accused of crimes during a tumultuous period marked by civil conflict.
Law N° 32419 arrives on the heels of the broader 2024 Law N° 32107, which introduced a statute of limitations for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed before July 1, 2002. This trend has been denounced by human rights advocates as it directly undermines Peru’s commitments under international law. Experts emphasize that the state needs to urgently reconsider these measures to ensure justice and reconciliation, thereby fulfilling its obligation to investigate gross human rights violations and crimes under international law, including enforced disappearances.
The passage of this law represents a significant regression in the context of transitional justice. It echoes earlier efforts with Law No. 26479, or the Barrios Altos law, which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights invalidated in 2001. These legal maneuvers are seen as placing more value on restoring the reputation of military and police forces over the critical needs of victims and the principles of truth and accountability.
Critics note that such legislation contradicts international norms and obligations, specifically those outlined by jus cogens, imposing a binding duty on states like Peru to investigate and punish serious violations. The Nuremberg Tribunal and the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties highlight the principle that domestic laws cannot contravene higher international justice norms. This legal doctrine is further supported by Article 18 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and Principle 24(a) of the Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity.
The legal and moral implications of Peru’s legislative direction are concerning for human rights observers, who emphasize the importance of adhering to international standards and ensuring that victims of past conflicts receive the justice they deserve. As the Peruvian Constitutional Court has previously upheld these principles, the future of accountability in Peru remains uncertain.
For further context and detailed evaluations, additional insights have been provided by JURIST’s coverage of the issue at JURIST.