Statement Expressing Concern Over the New Peruvian Law Restricting Civil Society Organizations

Traducción al español disponible aquí/Click here to access this report in Spanish

SUMMARY

The Vance Center for International Justice and the Inter-American Affairs Committee issued a statement expressing its deep concern regarding the recent approved bills passed by the Peruvian Congress on March 12, 2025, which severely restricts the activities of civil society organizations and threatens fundamental rights, including freedom of association, expression, access to justice, and the right to seek international protection. In line with its commitment to the rule of law, human rights, and the protection of civic space, the City Bar considers this law which establishes mechanisms of prior control, censorship, and disproportionate sanctions to undermine the autonomy and independence of civil society in Peru. The City Bar urges Peruvian President Dina Boluarte and Congress to review the proposed legislation to assure protection of fundamental freedoms of association, expression and access to justice and to not undermine an active civil society and its role as a check to governmental abuses.

STATEMENT

STATEMENT EXPRESSING CONCERN OVER THE NEW PERUVIAN LAW RESTRICTING CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS AND URGING REVISIONS OR A PRESIDENTIAL VETO TO ASSURE RESPECT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The New York City Bar Association[1] (the “City Bar”) expresses its deep concern regarding the recent approved bills passed by the Peruvian Congress on March 12, 2025, which severely restricts the activities of civil society organizations (CSOs) and threatens fundamental rights, including freedom of association, expression, access to justice, and the right to seek international protection.

In line with its commitment to the rule of law, human rights, and the protection of civic space, the City Bar considers this law which establishes mechanisms of prior control, censorship, and disproportionate sanctions to undermine the autonomy and independence of civil society in Peru.

The City Bar urges Peruvian President Dina Boluarte and Congress to review the proposed legislation to assure protection of fundamental freedoms of association, expression and access to justice and to not undermine an active civil society and its role as a check to governmental abuses.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2025, Peru’s Congress approved Bills 6162/2023-CR, 6252/2023-CR, 7140/2023-CR, 7354/2023-CR, 7367/2023-CR, and 7505/2023-CR (the “Approved Bills”), which amends Law 27692,[2] with 82 votes in favor, 16 against, and 4 abstentions.[3] According to its sponsors, the proposal seeks to enhance the work of the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI) and promote transparency and oversight of the resources received by entities managing Non-Refundable International Technical Cooperation. During congressional discussions, two members of Congress argued that the current legal framework contains loopholes that allow some NGOs to operate without sufficient transparency. One of them claimed the new law would end what they described as the “modus operandi” of organizations that allegedly misuse international cooperation funds for personal gain.[4] However, civil society organizations have raised serious concerns, arguing that the Approved Bills undermine fundamental rights and have the effect of chilling the formation and funding of civil society organizations that advance development and also protect against governmental abuses, as detailed below.

II. APPROVED LEGISLATION

This section draws from an analysis by the Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL)[5] to highlight some of the most troubling aspects of the legislation and their potential impact on civil society organizations and the communities they serve. It does not attempt to provide an exhaustive analysis of all provisions or potential consequences but rather focuses on key concerns that illustrate some of the broader risks posed by the reform.

a. Article 1 establishes the APCI as a public executing body under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It has technical, economic, budgetary, and administrative autonomy. APCI is responsible for implementing the National Policy on International Technical Cooperation (PNCTI), which is part of the State’s Foreign Policy. Its mission is to attract international resources to support “national development” and promote Peru’s international technical cooperation offerings in line with national development priorities and foreign policy.

b. The law does not define “national development” or guide APCI in determining it. As the new law requires all NGOs to register before APCI, IDL has raised concerns regarding the state’s control over NGO activities deemed to be against national development.

c. Article 21.c.2 of the amended APCI Law classifies the misuse of international technical cooperation resources as a very serious offense, specifically when they are used to advise, assist, or finance actions against the Peruvian State, whether administrative, judicial, or of any other nature, at the national or international level. This has a detrimental effect by effectively prohibiting NGOs from using international funds to provide legal defense or pursue actions against the state, even in cases seeking to hold the state accountable for human rights violations. In practice, it severely restricts the ability of civil society organizations to provide legal defense or representation in cases involving state responsibility.

d. Articles 3, 4, and 21 of the amended APCI Law force NGOs to register with APCI and obtain prior approval to implement their projects. Failure to do so is considered a serious offense. In 2007, the Peruvian Constitutional Court established as a constitutional guarantee that associations can operate freely without prior authorization.[6] The reform establishes registration and prior approval as mandatory, turning non-compliance into a serious offense punishable by sanctions, including fines or dissolution. The reform directly contradicts the 2007 decision.

e. Article 3 establishes the mandatory registration of all projects, programs, activities, and expenditures funded by international technical cooperation in a public and informative registry managed by APCI.

f. Article 4 grants APCI the power to give prior approval for the execution of any plans, programs, projects, activities, contracts, or agreements carried out by organizations managing international technical cooperation, including those signed with the State.

g. Article 21 defines the use of international cooperation resources without APCI’s prior approval as a serious violation. NGOs executing projects or activities without this approval can be sanctioned.

h. Article 22 establishes that APCI may impose various sanctions depending on the severity of the violation. These include a written warning, a fine of up to 500 Tax Units (UIT) equivalent to approximately US$733,000, temporary suspension of the benefits granted by registration until the violation is corrected, and cancellation of registration in cases of repeated serious offenses. Additionally, repeated violations could lead to the judicial dissolution of the legal entity.[7]

The Approved Bills do not consider that the Peruvian Constitutional Court (TC) had recognized that canceling an NGO’s registration with APCI effectively leads to the dissolution of its legal status, which violates the constitutional right to freedom of association. According to the TC, allowing APCI—a government agency—to cancel registration amounts to an administrative dissolution of a legal entity, which is unconstitutional since only a court decision or the conditions established in the Civil Code can dissolve an association. In the same opinion the TC also ruled that the provision banning the NGO’s leaders from participating in other organizations for five years after cancellation was unconstitutional.[8]

i. The second supplementary provision in the report states that the APCI will implement a real-time information and consultation system regarding the entities that manage international technical cooperation and carry out activities in the country. This information system will include a list of NGOs, cooperating entities, directors, technical teams, and relevant information for these purposes.[9]

III. MAIN CONCERNS RAISED BY CIVIL SOCIETY OVER CIVIC SPACE RESTRICTIONS

There are serious concerns about the likely negative impact of the recently approved amendments to the APCI Law on Peru’s civic space and the exercise of fundamental rights. Various civil society organizations, legal experts, and international human rights bodies have warned that the new law imposes excessive and unnecessary controls over non-governmental organizations (NGOs), threatening their autonomy and ability to operate freely. The reform severely restricts access to justice, particularly for Indigenous, rural, and marginalized communities that rely on support from NGOs to defend their rights. The vague and arbitrary notion of “national development” further enables the State to use it as a justification to selectively silence dissent and weaken the role of civil society as a counterweight to government power.

In a report published in December 2024, the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (PSEL), a nonprofit organization committed to advancing environmental policies and legislation in Peru, recommended rejecting the proposed bill. PSEL emphasized that APCI already had access to detailed information about NGOs, including organizations’ legal representatives, activities, projects, funding sources, and any international donations. It argued that the proposal to publish information in real-time and subject organizations to additional financial intelligence and tax investigations was  excessive and unnecessary. The report warned that such overregulation and extreme administrative requirements could overwhelm NGOs, cause delays, and obstruct their work, ultimately threatening the sustainability of existing organizations and discouraging the creation of new ones. Additionally, as previously noted in this report, PSEL warned that the bill seeks to publish sensitive financial and tax information and limit NGO registration with APCI.[10]

In its report, PSEL emphasized that the proposed real-time information and consultation system raises serious legal and constitutional concerns regarding personal data protection and financial confidentiality. The publication of personal information on NGO directors and technical teams violates Peru’s Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 29733). Under Articles 14 and 17 of this Law No. 29733, any entity holding personal data has the duty to keep such information confidential unless it is contained in or destined for publicly accessible sources. In this case, there is no justification for disclosing the personal data of technical staff, as they do not hold representational roles. Second, the publication of detailed financial information regarding the execution of international technical cooperation (ITC) funds by NGOs threatens the constitutional right to banking secrecy and tax confidentiality guaranteed by Article 2.5 of the Peruvian Constitution. This right extends not only to individuals but also to legal entities such as NGOs. The Constitution strictly limits the authority to lift banking secrecy or tax confidentiality to specific entities: judges, the Attorney General, a Congressional investigative committee, the Comptroller General in control actions over public funds, or the Superintendent of Banking, Insurance, and AFPs for financial intelligence purposes. It is important to emphasize that NGOs are already required to comply with transparency requirements by submitting annual reports to APCI detailing the execution of their programs, projects, and ITC funds (Articles 21.3, 21.4, and 21.6 of the APCI Law).[11]

On March 13, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association issued a public statement on social media expressing deep concern over the approval of the amendments to the Law creating the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI).[12] She also referred to communication OL PER 4/2024, sent to the Peruvian State on June 19, 2024, which she signed jointly with other United Nations Special Rapporteurs. In that communication, the Special Rapporteurs reminded the Government of Peru that States bear the primary responsibility and duty to protect, promote, and fulfill all human rights and fundamental freedoms. This includes adopting the necessary measures to create the social, economic, political, and other conditions, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that every person under their jurisdiction, individually or collectively, can fully enjoy these rights and freedoms in practice. They stressed the imperative for the Government to rationalize the regulatory framework applicable to civil society in line with international human rights standards. The communication urged the State to ensure that compliance with administrative obligations does not become an unbearable burden for civil society organizations nor discourage the exercise of the rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression, and the defense of human rights.[13]

On March 14, human rights organizations the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF), and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) published a joint statement condemning the new Peruvian legislation. The statement asserts that the law criminalizes NGOs that provide legal assistance or support in actions against the Peruvian State, including in cases of human rights violations, by labeling such support a “very serious offense.” It allows for disproportionate sanctions, including fines up to approximately $720,000 and cancellation of an organization’s registration. The statement argues that the law’s vague wording will enable arbitrary persecution of organizations that are critical of the government, thereby threatening the rights to freedom of association, expression, and access to justice.[14]

The same day, the National Organization of Indigenous, Andean, and Amazonian Women of Peru (ONAMIAP), the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP), the National Agrarian Confederation (CNA), the National Federation of Peasant, Artisan, Indigenous, Native, and Salaried Women of Peru (FENMUCARINAP), the Peasant Confederation of Peru (CCP), the Confederation of Amazonian Nationalities of Peru (CONAP), and the National Union of Aymara Communities (UNCA) signed a document raising concerns about the proposed legislative changes. The signatories argued that the amendment violated their human and fundamental rights, was unconstitutional both in form and substance, and infringed upon the right to free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous or Original Peoples, as established by law.[15]

Similarly, in a press release on March 20, 2025, Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged Peru’s President Dina Boluarte to veto the reform following its passage by Congress, warning that it seriously threatens freedom of association and expression. According to HRW, the legislation grants broad powers to the government to control and sanction NGOs and media outlets that receive foreign funding, including the possibility of canceling their registration if they engage in legal actions against the state. It also requires publishing these organizations’ addresses and detailed information about their projects, which the statement describes as “particular concerning” following several years of targeted campaigns by groups that have gathered outside the homes and offices of journalists and human rights defenders to intimidate them.[16]

Most recently, on March 21, 2025, the Peruvian human rights group Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL) warned that Congress’s approval of the anti-NGO law  is part of an accelerated process of democratic degradation that began in late 2022. The organization also condemned the prohibition preventing NGOs from providing legal defense in cases against the State, describing it as part of a broader strategy to dismantle investigations into human rights violations and leave victims without legal representation. IDL further highlighted the double standard created by the law: while victims of human rights violations would lose access to free legal defense, Congress has approved state-funded legal defense for party leaders, regardless of the severity of the alleged crimes they face. The Ministries of Defense and the Interior also cover the legal defense costs of military and police officers accused of human rights violations.[17]

IV. POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

The recently approved amendments to the APCI Law raise serious concerns regarding the disproportionate restrictions imposed on civic space and the exercise of fundamental rights in Peru. As detailed below, several provisions of the reform risk violating the rights to access justice, free association, and free expression, with a disproportionate impact on marginalized and vulnerable populations.

As the City Bar noted in a March 2024 statement expressing concern about similar legislation to regulate non-profit organizations in Paraguay[18], the new Peruvian legislation could potentially violate the following international human rights standards.

A. Freedom of Association

The right to freedom of association, as guaranteed by Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 16 of the American Convention of Human Rights (ACHR), guarantees the right to form and join formal and informal groups, including non-profit organizations. Under these international treaties, States must abstain from unduly obstructing this right and take measures to establish and maintain a safe and enabling environment for associations to function and to respect their privacy and that of their members. The right to freedom of association has also been found to include the right to access funding and resources.[19]

The ICCPR and ACHR provide a limited scope by which States may restrict the freedom of association. Article 22.2 of the ICCPR states that “no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of [the freedom of association] other than those which are prescribed by law, and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”  Similarly, the ACHR exclusively allows for the same restrictions on the freedom of association as the ICCPR.[20]

The U.N. Human Rights Committee[21] has consistently affirmed in its jurisprudence and guidance that “a restriction on the right to freedom of association can be justified only if it cumulatively meets” the conditions set out in ICCPR article 22.2 and is proportionate in nature.[22] Therefore, restrictions must (1) be provided for by law, (2) address a clear purpose set out in article 22.2, and (3) be “necessary in a democratic society.”[23] Similarly, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders has emphasized that “States should always be guided by the principle that the restrictions must not impair the essence of the right.”[24] In this sense, the ability of organizations to operate for lawful aims must prevail over non-essential restrictions.

1. 1. Provided for by law

The first prong of the test, “provided for by law,” is a procedural and a content requirement. Any restriction on the freedom of association must be outlined in a “duly promulgated law, regulation, decree, order, or decision of an adjudicative body.“[25] Additionally, the content of the restriction must be clearly enunciated to be considered “prescribed.“[26]

Several of the Approved Bills provisions—such as the vague classification of what constitutes actions “against national development” or “against the State”—lack the clarity and precision required to be considered “provided for by law” under Article 22.2 of the ICCPR and Article 16 of the ACHR. These ambiguous terms grant excessive discretion to APCI to determine when an NGO’s activities violate the law, creating legal uncertainty and enabling arbitrary enforcement.

1. 2. In the interest of a clear purpose set out in ICCPR article 22.2

With regard to the second prong, a restriction must fall under one of the permitted purposes under ICCPR article 22.2, including, as mentioned above, an interest in national security or public order, protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

When applying the second prong of the test, it is clear that the restrictions imposed by the amended APCI Law in Peru do not pursue a legitimate purpose recognized under Article 22.2 of the ICCPR. While the law vaguely references protecting “national development” and preventing actions “against the State,” these broad and undefined concepts do not align with the specific grounds permitted by international law—such as national security, public order, public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The vague invocation of “national development” opens the door to arbitrary interpretation and abuse, allowing the government to justify restrictions on civil society activities that are critical of state policies or defend marginalized groups. As such, the amendments lack a clear, legitimate purpose under ICCPR standards and instead risk being used to suppress dissent and limit the role of civil society in holding the State accountable.

3. Necessary in a democratic society

The U.N. Human Rights Committee has explained that the notion of a “democratic society” in the last prong of the cumulative test means a society where associations may “peacefully promote ideas not necessarily favorably received by the government or the majority of the population.“[27] In short, restrictions must respect freedom of expression and not be used to suppress dissent. Further, for a restriction to be “necessary in a democratic society” (emphasis added), the restriction must be proportionate to its objective. Drawing on precedent of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights in an analysis of national legislation regulating the activities of human rights defenders and organizations, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders stated that “the principle of necessity requires [showing] … that the law in question is the best available means of achieving that result [and] . . . that the impact of the law is as targeted as possible, thereby impairing the exercise of the affecting rights as little as possible.”[28] The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held that the freedoms of association and expression are essential to maintaining democracy and should be given the “maximum protection possible.”[29]

Applying this standard, the amendments to the APCI Law in Peru fail to demonstrate that the restrictions imposed on civil society organizations are necessary in a democratic society. Instead of being narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate aim, the law imposes sweeping controls that disproportionately restrict the ability of NGOs—especially those defending Indigenous rights, environmental protection, and vulnerable populations—to operate freely. By conditioning their work on prior government approval and penalizing the use of international cooperation funds for actions deemed “against the State” or “national development,” the reform creates a chilling effect on dissent and limits the peaceful promotion of ideas that may be unpopular with the government or powerful economic interests. Far from being the least restrictive means to achieve transparency or accountability, the law undermines the very role of civil society in a democracy: acting as a counterbalance to state power. As such, it violates the principle of necessity and proportionality, impairing fundamental rights more than is justified in a democratic society.

B. Internal affairs of organizations

Independence and non-interference in the internal affairs of organizations are essential elements for the full realization of freedom of association. The Human Rights Council recognized this principle in a resolution, stating that “reporting requirements placed on individuals, groups and organs of society [should] not inhibit functional autonomy.“[30] The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Association has observed that governments often use “extensive scrutiny over the internal affairs of associations, as a way of intimidation and harassment.”[31] This observation was echoed by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, who stated that “States should not interfere with the internal management and activities of NGOs.”[32] Excessive State monitoring and internal interference suppress critical voices and weaken democratic debate.

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Association and other special rapporteurs have repeatedly expressed that organizations must be allowed to conduct their activities freely, including the determination of their internal governance and activities,[33] and that organizations should be free from undue interference.[34] In response to concerns over similar NGO bills in other countries, the U.N. Special Rapporteurs have noted that under the ICCPR states have a positive obligation to establish and maintain an enabling environment[35] for the full realization of the freedom of association.

Government control over foreign funding creates a chilling effect on the activities of NGOs. Access to financing is an essential element in the realization of freedom of association. The issue of access to funding, particularly foreign funding, has been discussed in detail by human rights bodies. The international community, represented by the U.N. General Assembly, has recognized the right of association to encompass the right “to solicit, receive and utilize resources for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms through peaceful means.”[36] Similarly, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Association stated that “[a]ny association, both registered or unregistered, should have the right to seek and secure funding and resources from domestic, foreign, and international entities.”[37]

V. NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION CALLS ON THE PERUVIAN PRESIDENT TO PROTECT CIVIC SPACE

The City Bar urges the President of Peru  to veto this legislation and recognize the importance of an open civic space consistent with international law and Peru’s international commitments. Peru’s proposed legislation has sparked significant debate and concern among various sectors of Peruvian society and international organizations. The matter deserves ample discussion, hearing all relevant voices.

The current bill carries serious risks that could undermine the freedoms of association and expression of both local and international civil society organizations operating in Peru and consequently cause lasting damage to the fundamental human rights of Peruvians.

The New York City Bar strongly urges the President of Peru to veto this legislation and to initiate an inclusive dialogue aimed at developing a regulatory framework that both ensures transparency and oversight and protects fundamental rights. Any future legislation must refrain from imposing burdensome requirements on NGOs, infringing on the rights of victims of human rights violations to access justice, or endangering the work of human rights defenders.

Peru must align its regulatory framework with its obligations under international human rights law and maintain an open civic space essential to a democratic society.

Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice

Jaime Chávez Alor, Associate Executive Director. Member, Inter-American Affairs Committee

Romina Canessa, Senior Staff Attorney, Human Rights and Access to Justice Program

Cuitlahuac Castillo Camarena, Program Advisor, Institutional Integrity Program

Milena Klimberg van Marrewijk, Program Advisor, Human Rights and Access to Justice Program

Inter-American Affairs Committee

Jessenia Vazcones-Yagual, Chair

April 2025