LIMA, Peru — A contentious piece of legislation in Peru has sparked widespread criticism from UN human rights authorities and global activists. The law, passed recently, grants amnesty to members of the security forces implicated in severe violations of international law during the internal conflicts between 1980 and 2000.

UN experts have expressed grave concerns, stating that this move undermines Peru's efforts towards justice and reconciliation. They emphasized the urgent need for the Peruvian government to adhere to its international obligations to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for egregious human rights abuses, including enforced disappearances.

The controversial Law N° 32419 not only impacts individuals with pending convictions but also extends leniency to convicts over the age of 70. This follows Law N° 32107 from 2024, which introduced a statute of limitations for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed before July 2002, a move also under heavy scrutiny for contravening international law.

This series of legislative actions in Peru has been criticized for prioritizing the restoration of dignity to military and police forces over the rights of survivors and the principles of transitional justice. Experts argue that these laws violate jus cogens norms, which are fundamental principles of international law from which no departure is permitted.

Historically, similar attempts at amnesty in Peru have faced legal challenges. A notable instance is the 1995 Law No. 26479, known as the Barrios Altos law, which was overturned by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR).

The law also stands in opposition to several international norms, including Article 18 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

As the global community watches, the ramifications of this legislation continue to unfold, raising critical questions about the balance between national reconciliation efforts and the imperative of international human rights standards.