Statement condemning Peruvian Congress’s passage of statute of limitations for crimes against humanity and urging the president of Peru to veto the bill

SUMMARY

The New York City Bar Association, in a statement, “expresses profound concern over the Peruvian State’s blatant defiance of international human rights law principles and willingness to open the door to a law that would offer widespread protection to perpetrators of crimes against humanity.” 

The bill, if passed, would be “effectively ensuring impunity for atrocities that occurred during Alberto Fujimori’s presidency and Peru’s internal armed conflict,” the statement says. 

“The Peruvian Congress has approved this bill in contravention of basic tenets of international humanitarian law” and “would directly contradict the American Convention on Human Rights and numerous human rights treaties to which Peru is a signatory,” according to the statement. 

REPORT

STATEMENT CONDEMNING PERUVIAN CONGRESS’S PASSAGE OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND URGING THE PRESIDENT OF PERU TO VETO THE BILL

The New York City Bar Association[1] expresses profound concern over the Peruvian State’s blatant defiance of international human rights law principles and willingness to open the door to a law that would offer widespread protection to perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

On July 4, 2024, the Peruvian Congress passed Bill No. 6951/2023-CR, a piece of legislation that would establish a statute of limitations on crimes against humanity committed from the period of 1980-2002, effectively ensuring impunity for atrocities that occurred during Alberto Fujimori’s presidency and Peru’s internal armed conflict. This decision came on the heels of an Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“IACtHR”) resolution granting provisional measures in the Case of Barrios Altos and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, both of which involved accountability for massacres committed under the Fujimori regime. Despite the Court’s admonishment of the bill and directive to the State of Peru to cease the progression of the law, the bill passed in the Permanent Commission of Congress with a vote of 15-12 and is expected to be signed into law by President Dina Boluarte in the near future.[2]

The bill states that because the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into force in Peru in July 2002, and the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in November 2003, crimes committed before the entry into force of those treaties “are subject to the statutes of limitations established in national law,” and any imposed sanctions, whether administrative or judicial, are “null and unenforceable.”[3] In the language of the bill, the State reasons that a prohibition on statutes of limitation violates the principles of legality and the guarantees of due process. This justification, however, fails to acknowledge Peru’s international law obligations; additionally, it ignores the fact that most relevant cases of crimes against humanity were brought forth under domestic Peruvian law, meaning that such a bill would undermine the authority and long-established jurisprudence of Peru’s courts. Indeed, many emblematic cases would be at risk, including the monumental recent decision in Manta y Vilca, where a Peruvian tribunal found that the use of rape by state soldiers during the internal armed conflict constituted a crime against humanity.[4] Moreover, the Peruvian Congress has approved this bill in contravention of basic tenets of international humanitarian law that have been in effect since the Nuremberg Trials, in which perpetrators were prosecuted for crimes that shocked the conscience, notwithstanding the fact that at that time, the bounds of these crimes had yet to be defined. Overall, this bill jeopardizes the outcomes of both settled and pending cases and would cause “irreparable harm in victims’ access to justice in the cases of Barrios Altos and La Cantuta,” decided by the IACtHR.[5]

Between 1980 and 2000, Peru faced an internal armed conflict where an estimated 70,000 people were killed or subject to enforced disappearances by Shining Path, armed groups or state agents, according to Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[6] The bill in question would directly impact approximately 550 victims and 600 ongoing cases against state officials, members of the Armed Forces, and members of the National Police who have been accused of committing human rights violations during this period, including those who operated as part of the Fujimori regime from 1990-2000.[7] The Fujimori regime has been accused of grave crimes against humanity, including torture, massacres, sexual violence, and forced sterilization, committed in an effort to exterminate alleged insurgent rebel groups. The victims of the regime were largely poor, rural, and members of Peru’s indigenous communities.[8] Former President Alberto Fujimori himself was sentenced by a Peruvian court in 2009 to 25 years in prison for his role in these abuses. The Inter-American Court’s rulings in Barrios Altos and La Cantuta v. Peru also held the Fujimori regime accountable for the actions of the infamous Grupo Colina, a death squad comprised of Armed Forces personnel. The IACtHR released these decisions shortly after the end of Fujimori’s presidency and has been monitoring compliance with the sentences since this time.[9]

The IACtHR issued a resolution recognizing that the passage of a law that establishes a statute of limitations over atrocity crimes would have serious long-term ramifications and would constitute noncompliance in both of the aforementioned cases, over which it has presided for the past two decades.[10] Moreover, this law would directly contradict the American Convention on Human Rights and numerous human rights treaties to which Peru is a signatory.

In the strong interest of ensuring victims’ rights to access to justice, the Court compelled the State of Peru to take any measure necessary to avoid the passage of the bill, as an inherent element of its compliance with the decisions in Barrios Altos and La Cantuta, among other related cases.[11] The IACtHR further reminded the Peruvian State of its obligation to comply not only with its sentences, but with any issuance of provisional measures, and to ensure that the “interpretation and application of domestic law be consistent with the international human rights obligations of the State.”[12]

Beyond the Inter-American Court’s denouncement, the potential impact of this law has also garnered the attention and condemnation of numerous human rights groups, including UN experts who have warned that the law contravenes international standards on the application of statutes of limitations to atrocity crimes. In June 2024, following the vote to advance the bill, UN human rights entities, including the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances expressed: “[S]tatutes of limitations cannot apply to gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law which constitute crimes under international law.”[13]

UN experts further denounced the Peruvian State’s contravention of jus cogens principles and of customary international law, noting that the State’s actions are a step backward in the global trajectory of growing accountability for crimes against humanity: “At a time when most nations have reformed their domestic legislation to comply with this fundamental principle, bill 6951/2023-CR clashes [with] the international community’s basic values, it encourages impunity and is in patent contradiction with the Rule of law.”[14]

Considering the devastating impact this law will have on victims’ ability to demand accountability and redress, and in light of the provisional measures emitted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to which the State is legally bound and the concern expressed by numerous United Nations human rights mechanisms, the New York City Bar Association joins the urgent calls of civil society groups around the world in strongly urging the Government of Peru to:

1. Closely reexamine the repercussions of a law that would offer blanket immunity to numerous perpetrators of crimes against humanity and which directly contravenes principles of jus cogens, customary international law, the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which specifies that crimes against humanity are not subject to any statute of limitations and may therefore be prosecuted at any point after the alleged crime has occurred, among numerous other human rights treaties;
2. Prioritize access to justice for victims of the internal armed conflict and, particularly, those who suffered atrocity crimes during the Fujimori regime; and
3. Comply with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ decisions and provisional measures in the Case of Barrios Altos and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru and recognize the jurisdiction of the IACtHR in both cases and over matters of international human rights law.

Vance Center for International Justice
Alexander Papachristou, Executive Director

Jaime Chávez Alor, Associate Executive Director/Member, Inter-American Affairs Committee
Romina Canessa, Staff Attorney, Human Rights and Access to Justice Program
Astrid Reyes, Staff Attorney, Human Rights and Access to Justice Program

Inter-American Affairs Committee
Jessenia Vazcones-Yagual, Chair

International Human Rights Committee
Ramya Kudekallu, Immediate Past Chair

United Nations Committee
Sophia Murashkovsky, Co-Chair
Ervin Nina, Co-Chair

August 2024