Peru’s President Boluarte Grants Amnesty to Security Forces for Decades of Conflict Abuses

Peru Pardons Military, Police Accused of human Rights Abuses in 1980-2000 Conflict

By Reuters
February 8, 2024

LIMA – peruvian President Dina Boluarte has signed into law a controversial pardon for military and police officers accused of human rights violations committed between 1980 and 2000 during the country’s internal conflict with leftist rebel groups. The move, enacted Wednesday, has drawn criticism from international human rights bodies and sparked renewed debate over accountability for past abuses.

The law, initially approved by Peru’s congress in july, grants amnesty to security forces implicated in abuses committed while battling insurgent groups like the shining Path. Despite a formal request from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights urging Peru to reconsider the bill – emphasizing the need for victims to access justice – Boluarte proceeded with its enactment. The court also requested Peruvian courts refrain from enforcing the law.

Boluarte defended the pardon, stating in a speech that it “recognizes the sacrifice of members of the armed forces, the police and self-defense groups in the fight against terrorism” and aims to restore their “dignity.”

However, human rights organizations estimate the pardon will halt or overturn over 600 ongoing trials and invalidate 156 existing sentences against security officials. The conflict, spanning two decades, resulted in an estimated 69,000 deaths and disappearances, leaving deep scars on Peruvian society.

Supporters of the law, primarily from the right-wing Popular Force party, argue it is necessary to resolve the lengthy delays in trials that have persisted for over two decades. The Popular Force party, founded by the late former president Alberto Fujimori – who himself received a pardon in 2023 after being sentenced to 25 years for human rights abuses – has been a key proponent of the measure.

The timing of the pardon coincides with a period of political turmoil for Boluarte, who is currently under examination regarding the deaths of protesters following her assumption of office in late 2022. Her public approval ratings have plummeted to record lows, adding further complexity to the situation.

Related Articles

• Alberto Fujimori Receives Presidential Pardon
• Peru Protests: Investigation into Deadly Clashes
• Inter-American Court of Human Rights Urges Peru to Protect Justice

What are teh potential legal challenges to Law 31776, notably regarding the distinction between crimes of homicide and crimes against humanity?

The Controversial Decree: Law 31776 and its Implications

In a move sparking widespread condemnation from human rights organizations and families of victims, Peru’s President Dina Boluarte signed into law Decree 31776 in August 2025. This legislation grants amnesty to members of the security forces, and in some cases, former presidents, implicated in human rights violations committed during the internal armed conflict that ravaged Peru between 1980 and 2000. The decree focuses on acts committed while combating terrorism, specifically targeting members of groups like Shining Path (Sendero luminoso) and the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA).

This isn’t a blanket pardon; the amnesty applies to crimes of homicide,serious injuries,and kidnapping committed during counter-terrorism operations. Though,it explicitly excludes crimes against humanity and war crimes – a distinction critics argue is dangerously blurred in practice.The core debate centers around whether these acts, even if framed as counter-terrorism efforts, meet the definition of crimes against humanity under international law.

Key Provisions of the Amnesty Law

The law’s provisions are complex, but several key elements are driving the controversy:

Scope of Amnesty: The amnesty extends to both rank-and-file security personnel and high-ranking officials, including possibly former presidents accused of command obligation.

Justification: The government argues the amnesty is necessary for national reconciliation and to allow the armed forces to focus on current security challenges. Proponents suggest it will address lingering resentment within the military and foster stability.

Exclusions: While crimes against humanity and war crimes are theoretically excluded, the definition and request of these terms are being heavily scrutinized. Concerns exist that the law’s wording allows for loopholes.

Victim redress: The law offers limited provisions for victim redress, primarily focusing on symbolic reparations rather than significant financial compensation or justice.

Past Context: The Peruvian Armed Conflict (1980-2000)

Understanding the amnesty requires a grasp of the brutal peruvian armed conflict. This period saw intense fighting between the Peruvian state, leftist guerrilla groups (primarily Shining Path and MRTA), and paramilitary organizations. The conflict resulted in an estimated 70,000 deaths and widespread human rights abuses committed by all sides.

Key events contributing to the current situation include:

1. Rise of Shining Path: The emergence of Abimael Guzmán’s Shining Path in the early 1980s, with its Maoist ideology and violent tactics, escalated the conflict.
2. State Repression: The Peruvian state responded with a harsh crackdown, often employing excessive force and engaging in extrajudicial killings.
3. Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR): Established in 2001, the CVR documented widespread abuses by both state and non-state actors, identifying patterns of systematic violence. The CVR’s final report remains a crucial reference point in the debate.
4. Previous Amnesty Attempts: This isn’t the first attempt at amnesty in Peru. Previous efforts faced legal challenges and were ultimately overturned.

International Reaction and Human Rights Concerns

The international community has largely condemned Boluarte’s decision.Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have issued strong statements,arguing the amnesty violates Peru’s international human rights obligations.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against amnesties for serious human rights violations, citing the principle of worldwide jurisdiction and the right to justice for victims.

United Nations: UN Special Rapporteurs have expressed concern, emphasizing the importance of accountability for past abuses.

European Union: The EU has signaled its disapproval, potentially impacting trade and cooperation agreements.

The primary concerns revolve around:

Impunity: The amnesty effectively shields perpetrators from prosecution,perpetuating a culture of impunity.

Victims’ Rights: It denies victims and their families the right to truth, justice, and reparations.

International Law: It contravenes Peru’s commitments under international human rights treaties.

Legal Challenges and Potential Outcomes

The amnesty law is already facing legal challenges within Peru. Victims’ organizations and opposition parties have filed constitutional complaints, arguing the law violates the Peruvian constitution and international law.

Potential outcomes include:

Constitutional tribunal Review: The Constitutional Tribunal will likely be the key arbiter of the law’s legality.Its decision could uphold, modify, or strike down the amnesty.

International Pressure: Continued international pressure could force the Boluarte administration to reconsider the law.

Political Instability: The controversy surrounding the amnesty is exacerbating existing political tensions in Peru, potentially leading to further unrest.

Impact on Transitional Justice: The law substantially undermines Peru’s efforts towards transitional justice and reconciliation.

The Role of former Presidents and Command Responsibility

A particularly contentious aspect of the amnesty is its potential application to former presidents accused of command responsibility for human rights violations. This raises complex legal questions about the extent to which high-ranking officials can be held accountable for the actions of their subordinates.

The principle of command responsibility holds that superiors can be held liable for crimes committed by their subordinates