Skip to content

Law 32107 blocks the possibility of investigating and punishing war crimes and human rights violations committed in Peru before 2002. | EFE

Justice for victims of the armed conflict in Peru, again at risk

Law 32107 blocks investigations and sanctions for war crimes prior to 2002 in Peru. This affects more than 69,000 victims of the armed conflict, mainly indigenous and peasant communities, perpetuating impunity, exclusion and making social reconciliation difficult in a polarized country.

Por: Betsy Zavaleta Amaya, Isabel de BrigardDecember 18, 2024

Last October 22, the families of Pativilca community members were finally able, after twenty-two years, to bury their six murdered relatives. Their lifeless bodies were discovered in a cane field near the highway in Lima, Peru, in 1992. The story of these six families, like those of the more than 69,000 victims who, according to the report of the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (“CVR”), were left by two decades of internal armed conflict, is the story of a tireless struggle to uncover the truth and achieve justice. But it is also the story of exclusions and inequalities that have perpetuated impunity for the crimes committed in a conflict that hit every corner of Peru, in which those who are most vulnerable suffered the most intense violence. These same communities also suffer the harshest effects of inequality and increasing repression today. In a context in which disputes over the armed conflicts’ narrative are mixed with efforts to silence the claims of excluded sectors, Law 32107, also known as the “Impunity Law”, was enacted. This law could undermine efforts to build an understanding of the conflict that favors social reconciliation and allows the social origins of the conflict to be addressed. 

What does Law 32107 entail?

Law 32107, quickly enacted on August 9, 2024, blocks the possibility of investigating and punishing war crimes and human rights violations committed before 2002, when Peru adopted the Rome Statute, granting the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over these crimes, as long as national authorities are unwilling or unable to adequately investigate and prosecute them. This law affects both convictions already applied for crimes classified as war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as ongoing investigations. On the one hand, it opens the door to the release of people already convicted of crimes or who have accepted responsibility for acts that took place during the conflict. Figures such as Nelson Carbajal García, a military officer sentenced for the massacre at La Cantuta University and accused as co-author of the Pativilca massacre; or Vladimiro Montesinos, former advisor to Alberto Fujimori, sentenced to 19 years and 8 months in prison for the murder of the Pativilca peasants and the homicide of 9 students and a teacher at La Cantuta, have already requested that their cases be archived, since they correspond to crimes that Law 32107 would block from being sanctioned. On the other hand, this law once again renders the families of the victims whose cases have not yet been clarified, which number more than 600, defenseless. 

The effects of this law are profound and, like the conflict, hits those who have already suffered the violence the hardest. The crimes that will remain unpunished mainly affect structurally excluded populations: peasant communities or indigenous peoples, who experienced first-hand the violence of the conflict and who now see the possibility of justice they have long awaited vanishing once again. To these communities, the law sends a clear message that the CVR had already warned about: “for the rest of the country, particularly for the main centers of political and economic power, what happened in their villages, homes and families happened in ‘another country’, in a Peru alien to modernity and power”, and which will once again be pushed aside.

Who defends the law and why?

At its core, behind the enactment of this law there is a dispute over the way in which the armed conflict is understood and what means were considered legitimate to contain the violence that the country was suffering since the 80’s. Its promoters insist that if there was any abuse committed by the public forces during this period, it was a necessary evil, the cost of pacifying a country that was bleeding to death because of terrorism. This approach stands in contrast to the findings of the CVR’s Final Report, which documents that State agents were responsible for more than 37% of the deaths and disappearances during the conflict, 83% of the cases of sexual violence against women and girls, more than 7,300 extrajudicial executions and 6,400 cases of torture. 

But the fact that these were the most violent years of the internal conflict in Peru does not make these serious human rights violations a necessary evil. This violence, exercised by agents of the State, is not justifiable; its victims have the right to ensure that what happened to them does not go unpunished, even if in many cases the perpetrators maintain close ties to political power. However, the Board of Supreme Prosecutors of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Peru warned that Law 32107 will force those still investigating approximately 600 episodes of grave violations that occurred during the conflict to archive these cases, including some emblematic ones such as Manta and Vilca, Barrios Altos, Pativilca and more. 

The most important implication of the law is undoubtedly that it will affect more than 550 victims and their families, who once again will see the possibility of justice and reparations for the crimes they suffered frustrated. Moreover, in a scenario of great polarization in which the collective memory of the conflict is still in dispute, society as a whole loses the possibility of knowing the truth about the events during the conflict and moving towards reconciliation. 

What can be done?

In Peru, there have been many warnings about the law and repeated support for the victims and their families, reopening wounds that were just beginning to heal. But with a weakened civil society and in a context of great volatility, international solidarity and pressure are a fundamental element to prevent the most serious effects of this law. Moreover, there are precedents that demonstrate that this pressure can bring about significant changes and contribute to strengthening access to justice for victims of the conflict. In fact, the amnesty laws enacted in 1995 and 1997 in Peru, which in some sense are precursors to Law 32107, did not have lasting legal effects thanks to the intervention of the IACHR, which found them incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and declared the Peruvian State to be under an obligation to investigate and punish these human rights violations. It is to be expected that international organizations will issue a statement and take steps to mitigate and even avoid some of the damages that the law may cause. In fact, the UN has already sought explanations from Peru on this law, through the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, in a request submitted in October. 

At the national level, one of the most powerful mechanisms is the diffuse control of judicial authorities. This principle allows Peruvian judges to not apply Law 32107 when they consider that it contradicts the Constitution or Peru’s international commitments. This creates advocacy opportunities in which judges can decide not to apply the law in certain cases, following the guidelines of international law. This was done in the Huanta case, for example. In fact, the Lima Bar Association (CAL) has requested the law be declared unconstitutional, which is a key step towards having it reviewed by the Constitutional Court and ensuring access to justice for victims. The strengthening of civil society is also essential. Human rights organizations, both national and international, must continue their efforts to make the negative impact of this law visible and ensure that the victims of the internal armed conflict are not forgotten. 

The families of the Pativilca community members were recently able to bury their dead. But like so many other families in Peru, they are still waiting for their case to be decided, for the truth to be known about what happened to their loved ones, and for justice to be done. It is crucial that Law 32107 does not prolong the uncertainty and pain of those who have already suffered the worst of the conflict.

Powered by swapps
Scroll To Top