UN experts on Friday condemned the dismissal of Peruvian Judge Oswaldo Ordóñez Alcántara, formerly the president of the First Constitutional Chamber of Lima, from his post. The move was described as a reprisal for his defense of judicial independence and his public criticism of legislative reforms that could weaken the rule of law in the country.

The experts commented on the gravity of the issue, saying: “Judges must be able, individually and collectively, to participate in public debate on the organization, functioning and independence of the judiciary, in accordance with their duties of discretion and responsibility, without fear of pressure, deterrent measures or proceedings that could impede the exercise of their institutional functions.”

In particular, the experts criticized the line of questioning used by the National Council of Justice of the Republic of Peru about his participation in a hearing on the “State of Judicial Independence in the Americas” before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in November 2024. During the hearing, Judge Ordóñez  stated that a group of legislators “have been destabilizing the justice system and, in turn, weakening the Judiciary and the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Peru.”

This led the National Board of Justice of Peru to initiate a preliminary investigation, stating that such statements contravene the “appearance of impartiality” expected of magistrates. Critics raised concerns that this type of inquiry treats a legitimate critique of institutional interference as if it were prima facie evidence of judicial misconduct, thereby inverting the logic of accountability and intimidating judicial figures.

The International Association of Judges (IAJ) emphasized the flawed manner in which the investigation was opened against Judge Ordóñez, stating that his comments were made in his capacity as a representative of the profession, in his official capacity as a judge. The right of association, including participating in fora concerning one’s profession, is a protected right, and the decision to launch proceedings against Ordóñez constitutes a direct attack on that right.

In the case of Cuya Lavy v. Peru and Urrutia Laubreaux v Chile, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established that states have a binding obligation to refrain from adopting measures that may either directly or indirectly constitute retaliation against individuals who participate in discussions over human rights. In light of such existing case law and the fact that judicial independence is codified under the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, the IAJ found the proceedings to be unlawful.