According to the bill, the continuation of open trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity, when such trials began before the entry into force of the Rome Statute (2002) and the Convention on the Imprescriptibility of Crimes of War & Crimes against Humanity (2003), is contrary to the principle of non-retroactivity in criminal law.

Refuting the arguments put forward in the bill, representatives of the Institute of Democracy & Human Rights of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (IDEHPUCP) pointed out that the obligations of the Peruvian state regarding the investigation and punishment of human rights violations and reparation to the victims precede these international treaties by a long way. They stated that “the use of a legal device cannot, under any circumstances, imply the denial of these obligations and their correlative rights.”

The bill has both supporters and opponents in the Peruvian Congress. In the right-wing bloc, Congressmember Fernando Rospigliosi (Fuerza Popular) defended the bill, stating that it seeks to correct the injustices committed against the military and police who defeated terrorism. On the other hand, Congressmember Sigrid Bazán (Cambio Democrático) stated via Twitter (translated): “The Constitutional Commission, thanks to Fuerza Popular, has just approved an ‘Amnesty Law’ that is actually a #LawOfImpunity under another name.”

Between 1980 and 2000, Peru faced an internal armed conflict, with the Communist Party of Peru-Shining Path (PCP-SL) waging a “people’s war” against the state. Peru’s Truth & Reconciliation Commission (CVR) found that the conflict resulted in approximately 69,280 deaths, with 54% attributed to the PCP-SL and the remainder to the security forces and other actors.

Although the CVR recommended that all these crimes be promptly investigated, there are judicial processes related to crimes committed during the conflict that have been ongoing for more than 20 years. These incude the 1983 Manta and Vilca case, in Huancavelica region, which involved widespread and systematic acts of sexual violence committed by the military.

The bill is next to be debated in the Plenary of the Peruvian Congress for final approval. If passed, the bill would be sent to President Dina Boluarte for enactment within 15 working days. However, the president can object if she deems the bill contrary to the Constitution or international treaties ratified by the Peruvian state.

From Jurist, March 13. Used with permission.

Photo: Protontorniyo via Wikimedia Commons

However, the vote was harshly condemned by former foreign minister Héctor Béjar, who said the estimated 700 US troops will be disposed to support operations by the security forces against Peru’s social movements, now preparing a new mobilization: “It is obvious that the presence of these soldiers is a deterrent, part of a policy of intimidation of the Peruvian people, who have announced new protests for next July.” (Prensa Latina)

The ouster of Pedro Castillo as president last December set off a wave of mass protest across Peru. The country’s security forces carried out extrajudicial or arbitrary killings and committed other “egregious abuses” against demonstrators during protests that swept the country from late last year through February, Human Rights Watch found in a new report.

A briefer US troop deployment was approved last year by Castillo’s own government, after Héctor Béjar had been removed as foreign minister in a perceived tilt to the right. However, the deployment was protested by voices within Castillo’s own left-populist Partido Perú Libre (PPL).

Photo: IndymediaArgentina

Leftist lawmaker Verónika Mendoza responded to the CCP raid by charging that new president Dina Boluarte “is not leader of a government of transition, but a government of repression.” (M24, RPP)

One day before the raid, an initiative in Congress to hold new elections in December 2023, instead of April 2026 as currently scheduled, failed to become law despite a wide majority vote in its favor. With 25 abstentions, it failed to win the total number of votes necessary for a constitutional change. (TeleSur, BBC News, RPP)

On Dec. 26, National Police agents detained six generals from their own ranks in connection with alleged crimes under Castillo. (Jurist) On Dec. 27, Boluarte reshuffled her cabinet and announced a new prime minister—Luis Alberto Otárola, who became the new defense minister after Castillo’s ouster Dec. 7, and subsequently announced a national state of emergency. (Peru Reports)  On Dec. 29, Peru’s Supreme Court upheld a decision allowing Castillo to be held in “preventive detention” for 18 months as he is investigated on charges of corruption and rebellion. (Al Jazeera)

On Dec. 30, the former chief of DIRCOTE, Óscar Arriola, came forward with claims that Castillo’s personal attorney, Wilfredo Robles, had been detained with explosives in 1992, intended for use by the Shining Path—the latest in a series of efforts to smear Castillo as linked to the now-moribund Maoist insurgency. (El Comercio, El Popular)

It also emerges that Castillo’s defense minister, Gustavo Bobbio Rosas, met with US Ambassador Lisa Kenna the day before the Castillo’s ouster. (Andina) This has been exploited in irresponsible speculation that the US had a hand in Castillo’s removal—despite the fact that Bobbio Rosas was himself removed along with Castillo, and replaced by Otárola.

Lawmaker Sigrid Bazán of Juntos por el Perú-Cambio Democrático, the main leftist bloc in Congress, has intoduced a measure calling for a popular referendum on whether to hold a Constituent Assembly to draw up a new constitution—a key demand of the protest movement. (InfoBae)

The death toll in the protests now stands at 27. (Peru Reports)

Photo: Wayka