The law was also adopted despite internal findings of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, besides the findings of the IACtHR and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, that it was contrary to Peru’s obligations under international law. Several domestic institutions also reject the law, including the association of judges and the prosecutors of the specialised system set up to investigate human rights abuses, as well as human rights organisations and Peru’s bishops’ conference.
Peru’s prosecutors and judges may indeed decide to refrain from applying the law to act in a manner compatible with Peru’s obligations under the ACHR (applying the ‘conventionality control’) and by adhering to the obligation not to apply laws contrary to Peru’s constitution (see Article 138 Constitution). This is precisely what Judge Antonia Saquicuray did in 1995 when she viber database refused to apply the Amnesty law in the Barrios Altos Case, which led to the famous case before the IACtHR. Judges have, thus, to decide whether to follow her path, disregard domestic law with possible sanctions imposed on them, or apply the ‘impunity law’ and violate international law.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, the passing of the impunity law does not stand alone but is part of a broader trend of undermining transitional justice and accountability mechanisms in Peru. This trend has now reached a new high with an impunity law that is both egregious and in flagrant violation of international law. Many victims who remain alive appear, however, not prepared to accept this shift. Even though they may now directly lodge a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, since an exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies may apply, these proceedings are time-consuming. As has been noted elsewhere before, for most victims, ‘time is running out’.