Within the framework of the 60th Session of the UN Human Rights Council In Geneva, the Minister of Justice, Juan José Santiváñezdefended the questioned amnesty law promulgated by the government of Dina Boluarte. In your speech, Santiváñez said the rule was an answer to “terrorist attacks that tried to undermine democracy and the rule of law.”
“With reference to the approval of the Amnesty Law, I would like to point out that it has been carried out in accordance with the separation of powers and in response to the terrorist attacks that have tried to undermine democracy and the rule of law, causing great suffering to our people.
In this context, Peru will continue to evaluate whether it remains in the Inter -American Human Rights System, as well as the need to promote the revision of norms of said system, “he said in his speech.
You can see: Discord for the monopoly on the access route to the citadel of Machu Picchu generates delays to tourists
However, the argument presented by Santiváñez does not coincide with the one used in Congress when the amnesty was approved. There, the promoters indicated that the measure was necessary because the judicial processes linked to cases of political violence were “stagnant.” This contradiction reinforces the criticism of specialists and international organizations that warn an attempt to justify impunity.
It should be remembered that the UN HIGH COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, Volker Türk, warned that the amnesty law represents “A setback for justice and for truth“And that, far from closing wounds,” increases tension and violence in society. ” Türk He also stressed that rules like this put the victims at risk.
IDH Court orders Peru not to apply amnesty law to police and military
The Inter -American Court of Human Rights (Corte IDH) ordered the Peruvian State to refrain from applying Law 32419, the controversial amnesty law that seeks to exonerate military, police and officials who participated in the internal armed conflict between 1980 and 2000.
The IdH Court stressed that the application of this law would violate the right of victims to justice and truth, and attempt against international standards of consolidated human rights in previous sentences.
Despite these warnings, the Executive has tried to justify the measure and pointed out terrorist attacks and delays in judicial processes, a narrative that contradicts the real foundations of the law and that has been qualified by the international community as an attempt to bleach impunity.
