In a move that has sparked outrage both nationally and internationally, the Peruvian government enacted a controversial amnesty law in August that benefits military personnel, police officers, and members of self-defense organizations accused of committing human rights violations during the country’s internal armed conflict from 1980 to 2000. This law, which impacts the quest for justice for approximately 69,000 victims, has been condemned for institutionalizing impunity and perpetuating a cycle of violence against the most marginalized segments of society.
To gain insights into the implications of this law, CIVICUS spoke with Nadia Ramos Serrano, founder and researcher at the Leadership Centre for Women of the Americas, a civil society organization dedicated to promoting democratic development and the role of women in politics. Ramos Serrano’s perspective sheds light on the deeper ramifications of this legislation on victims and the broader society.
The amnesty law effectively exonerates members of the armed forces and police from criminal responsibility for acts committed during the conflict, including serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, and torture. Although the law ostensibly excludes certain crimes, its practical application raises significant concerns about accountability and justice.
“This law re-victimizes those who have already suffered unimaginable losses,” Ramos Serrano explains. “After decades of struggle, the state is telling victims that those responsible for the murder and disappearance of their loved ones will not face consequences. This is not only a betrayal of their fight for justice but a further infliction of harm by the state itself.”
The law disproportionately affects Indigenous Aymara and Quechua communities, who have historically been marginalized and excluded from the political and judicial processes. Ramos Serrano emphasizes that the state’s actions are perceived as a continuation of systemic discrimination, reinforcing feelings of abandonment among these communities and eroding trust in governmental institutions.
Critically, the amnesty law contradicts both national and international legal standards. “The state cannot pardon itself for violating human rights; justice is non-negotiable,” Ramos Serrano asserts. “This law seeks to normalize impunity and undermines the fundamental principle of equality before the law.” The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has made it clear that amnesty cannot be granted for crimes against humanity, with past cases, such as Barrios Altos versus Peru, serving as precedents for accountability.
Civil society has responded vigorously to this draconian legislation. Academic institutions, human rights organizations, and victim advocacy groups have united to denounce the law, viewing it as a significant regression in the fight for justice and memory. The National Human Rights Coordination, along with feminist and youth organizations, has organized protests, issued statements, and launched public campaigns aimed at raising awareness about the implications of this law.
The wounds of the conflict remain fresh, with many families still awaiting justice. Despite the government’s focus on counterterrorism, crimes committed by the state remain largely invisible. More than 20,000 individuals are still missing, and as Ramos Serrano notes, “For the families of these victims, this law prolongs an already agonizing mourning process.”
In contrast to Peru’s troubling regression, many countries in the region are making progress in transitional justice processes. For instance, Argentina has repealed laws that previously shielded those responsible for crimes against humanity during its dictatorship, resulting in numerous convictions. Similarly, Chile has implemented reparation policies and conducted trials for those guilty of human rights violations. Colombia’s establishment of a Special Jurisdiction for Peace illustrates that it is possible to achieve justice and reconciliation without resorting to blanket amnesties.
The international community has reacted with alarm to Peru’s latest developments. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an urgent resolution reminding the Peruvian government that amnesties cannot be applied in cases involving crimes against humanity. Organizations such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have condemned the law, highlighting its violation of fundamental international legal principles and warning of the deteriorating rule of law in Peru.
As the struggle for justice continues, it is imperative that the voices of victims and civil society are amplified. The enactment of this amnesty law serves as a sobering reminder of the ongoing fight against impunity and the need for systemic change to ensure that human rights are upheld for all. The path forward must prioritize accountability and justice, reaffirming the commitment to never allow such violations to go unpunished again.
