UN experts criticize Peru over legislation granting amnesty to war criminals News
GORE Callao, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
UN experts criticize Peru over legislation granting amnesty to war criminals

UN human rights experts on Tuesday voiced alarm over a newly approved law in Peru that grants amnesty to security forces accused of committing serious violations of international law between 1980 and 2000—an action that activists denounce as a setback to the country’s commitment to accountability and justice.

In commenting on the domino effect of injustice that this law could cause, the experts stated:

The State must urgently reverse these setbacks in Peru’s pursuit of justice and reconciliation, and fully comply with its international obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish gross human rights violations and crimes under international law committed during the internal armed conflict, including enforced disappearances.

Law N° 32419 is only the latest in a series of legislative measures designed to shield members of the Armed Forces, the Peruvian National Police, and Self-Defense Committees accused of crimes committed between 1980 and 2000. It applies both to those whose convictions are not yet final and to individuals over the age of 70 who have already been convicted. Its immediate predecessor, Law N° 32107, approved in 2024, went even further by introducing a statute of limitations for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed before July 1, 2002, effectively undermining Peru’s obligations under international law. This growing pattern represents a failure to uphold survivors’ rights and the principles of transitional justice; it underscores how the rhetoric of “sacrifice” and the effort to restore the dignity of military and police forces are being placed above accountability, truth, and the enduring needs of victims. 

A previous attempt to enact an amnesty law in 1995, known as Law No. 26479 or the Barrios Altos law, which prevented investigations against perpetrators of war crimes, had been quashed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR).

This measure was also criticized for violating jus cogens norms, which are preemptory principles of customary international law from which no derogation is permitted and impose on states a binding positive obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish grave violations. As the Nuremberg Tribunal and the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) underscored, individuals and States cannot shield themselves behind domestic law when that law contravenes higher norms of justice, effectively destroying the universality of human rights protections.

Such laws exist in contravention with Article 18 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Principle 24(a) of the Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity, Article 1 of the Convention of the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, 26 November 1968, and upheld by the Peruvian Constitutional Court.

THIS DAY @ LAW

First US life insurance company incorporated

On January 11, 1759, America's first life insurance company was incorporated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Corporation for Relief of Poor and Distressed Widows and Children of Presbyterian Ministers was established by Presbyterians to support the families of their ministers. In 1988, the company's name was changed to the Presbyterian Ministers' Fund. The company later became Covenant Life Insurance Company before being acquired by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company in 2002. Read a history of the Presbyterian Ministers' Fund from the Pennsylvania Historical Society.

Treaty ended Anglo-American claims, courts in China

On January 11, 1943, the United States and Great Britain relinquished by treaty their extraterritorial claims in China. This abandonment effectively ended the jurisdiction of the extraterritorial United States Court for China (established 1906) and the British Supreme Court in China. Read more about the United States Court for China, which one scholar has called "probably the strangest federal tribunal ever constituted by Congress," in a short online history of the US Ninth Circuit.