UN Experts Warn Peru Court Ruling on ‘Impunity Law’ Violates Global Norms

The experts warned that the decision represents a serious step backward and undermines binding principles of international human rights law.

UN human rights experts expressed deep alarm over a recent ruling by Peru’s Constitutional Court that upholds a controversial “impunity law” allowing statutes of limitations to be applied to crimes against humanity. The experts warned that the decision represents a serious step backward and undermines binding principles of international human rights law.

The ruling concerns Law 32107, which the Court deemed constitutional. The majority opinion argued that statutes of limitations could apply to crimes against humanity committed before Peru ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. The Court also invoked principles of legality, non-retroactivity, and lengthy judicial delays in its reasoning.

UN Experts Reject the Court’s Legal Reasoning

UN experts countered that the Court’s reasoning directly contradicts well-established international standards.

“Crimes against humanity are imprescriptible under international law,” they said. As peremptory norms (jus cogens), prohibitions against such crimes bind all states universally, regardless of individual treaty ratification.

They emphasized that international law has long recognized atrocities such as torture, enforced disappearance, and extrajudicial execution as crimes—meaning that the principle of legality cannot be used to shield perpetrators. Judicial delays, they added, cannot serve as a justification for impunity.

Conflict With Regional and International Precedents

The experts recalled that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have repeatedly warned Peru that the “impunity law” is incompatible with its obligations under international human rights law. They also noted that UN mechanisms had previously issued opinions raising similar concerns.

“Peru is bound by norms of general international law and its international obligations. Domestic interpretations cannot override norms designed to protect humanity from the worst crimes,” the experts stressed.

Risks to Judicial Independence

The ruling went a step further by ordering the annulment of previous judicial decisions that had rejected the constitutionality of Law 32107. UN experts warned that such interference threatens judicial independence and increases the risk of reprisals against judges and prosecutors who uphold international standards—many of whom, they noted, are already facing pressure and attacks.

Call for Alignment With International Standards

The experts urged the Peruvian government to:

• Ensure its laws comply with international norms prohibiting statutes of limitations for crimes against humanity

• Guarantee accountability for serious human rights violations

• Protect the independence and safety of judicial actors

“Justice delayed must not become justice denied,” they said, reiterating that accountability is essential to prevent recurrence of atrocities and safeguard the rule of law.

The experts confirmed they have engaged directly with the Peruvian Government about the implications of the ruling and will continue monitoring the situation.