In Dialogue with Peru, Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Ask Questions on the 2024 Law on Crimes against Humanity and its Impact on Investigations into Enforced Disappearances
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the report of Peru on a stand-alone request for additional information under article 29 (4) of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The request concerned the State’s law 32107, which addressed crimes against humanity and war crimes. Committee Experts asked questions on the effects of the law on investigations into historic enforced disappearances and reported reprisals against judges who spoke out against it.
Juan Pablo Alban Alencastro, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about the effect that law 32107 had on search activities and the restitution of victims’ remains for enforced disappearance cases from before 2002? The law reportedly limited the financial capacity of the General Directorate for the Search for Disappeared Persons, and granted privileges to the State armed forces, police and persons over age 80 who were accused of crimes against humanity. How would the State party prevent the law from allowing for impunity for perpetrators?
Horacio Ravenna, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about measures taken to protect judges deciding on the constitutionality of law 32107. Reportedly, at least three judges had been affected by reprisals to date.
Introducing the report, Luis Fernando Domínguez Vera, Director General of Human Rights of Peru and head of the delegation, said that law 32107 ensured that war crimes and crimes against humanity were not subject to the statute of limitations. There were two appeals lodged by the Public Prosecutor’s Office currently before the Constitutional Court regarding the constitutionality of the law. This indicated that the State’s democratic checks and balances were working.
Law 32107 did not obstruct investigations into historic enforced disappearances, Mr. Domínguez Vera said. Investigations were always carried out with a humanitarian lens, aiming to uncover the remains of disappeared persons to alleviate the suffering of victims’ families. A prosecutorial body had been established to accelerate search and investigation activities for cases of enforced disappearance.
The delegation said there were guarantees in place ensuring that judges’ right to free speech was upheld. Judges had the opportunity to lodge cases before domestic courts and international bodies to seek remedies in cases of violations.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Domínguez Vera thanked the Committee for the constructive dialogue. He said Peru had been assessing legitimate concerns related to law 32107. It was working to establish clear timelines and methodologies for the team tasked with investigating enforced disappearances, for the benefit of the family members of victims. Mr. Domínguez Vera closed by reaffirming Peru’s commitment to the international human rights system.
Olivier de Frouville, Committee Chair, said in concluding remarks that this was one of the first times that the Committee had held a dialogue based on a stand-alone request for information under article 29 (4) of the Convention. The Committee would issue concluding observations based on the dialogue. Mr. de Frouville closed by thanking all parties that had participated.
The delegation of Peru consisted of the Director General of Human Rights, the General Director of the Search for Disappeared Persons, and representatives of the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Peru at the end of its twenty-eighth session, which concludes on 4 April. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 10 a.m. on Monday, 24 March to consider the initial report of Belgium on additional information under article 29 (4) of the Convention (CED/C/BEL/AI/1).
Report
The Committee has before it the report of Peru on a stand-alone request for additional information under article 29 (4) of the Convention (CED/C/PER/QSA/AI/1).
Presentation of Report
LUIS FERNANDO DOMÍNGUEZ VERA, Director General of Human Rights of Peru and head of the delegation, said Peru was firmly committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and the implementation of the Convention. It was a democratic, independent and sovereign social State organised according to the principle of separation of powers.
Peru had taken steps to ensure that there was clear delineation between the powers of each branch of Government. Serious war crimes needed to be heard before the courts. The State was the principal guarantor of human rights, and was responsible for providing remedies for human rights violations, including crimes against humanity. It was also responsible for resolving disputes regarding the application of law. The State party had a robust legal system for protecting human rights. Individuals could challenge the constitutional nature of any State law. The Constitution stated that domestic norms and rules were implemented in line with the international human rights treaties ratified by the State.
In 2024, the State party adopted law 32107, which covered crimes against humanity and war crimes. The law ensured that war crimes and crimes against humanity were not subject to the statute of limitations. There were two appeals lodged by the Public Prosecutor’s Office currently before the Constitutional Court regarding the constitutionality of the law. Judges could monitor and oversee any law that they believed to be unconstitutional. The possibility of a pardon for the crime of enforced disappearance was not provided for in the law. The Committee was not mandated to review the constitutional nature of this law; this was the mandate of the Constitutional Court.
Law 32107 did not obstruct investigations into historic enforced disappearances. Investigations were always carried out with a humanitarian lens. The rule of law prevailed in Peru. The State party exerted efforts to ensure that it upheld its international obligations. A humanitarian approach was necessary to uncover the remains of disappeared persons to alleviate the suffering of victims’ families. A prosecutorial body had been established to accelerate search and investigation activities for cases of enforced disappearance.
Law 28592, which established the system for reparations, had been extended to victims of enforced disappearance from the 1980s to the 2000s who were on the victims register. The provision of reparations was not impacted by law 32107. Around 19,250 families of victims of enforced disappearance on the victims register had access to economic reparations worth 72 billion sols. Close to 100 per cent of these victims’ families had received reparations. Reparations had also been provided in the fields of healthcare and education, and symbolic reparations were also provided.
Questions by Committee Experts
JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked why the State party believed that law 32107 was compatible with the State party’s treaty obligations to consider enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity. How did the law address the continuous nature of the crime? In June 2024, the Public Prosecutor’s Office stated that one legal consequence of the law was that around 600 cases would need to be concluded, affecting around 550 victims, including victims of enforced disappearance. How would the law impact cases currently under investigation? There was a serious risk of impunity for perpetrators if the law were to be applied.
What effect did law 32107 have on search activities and the restitution of victims’ remains for cases from before 2002? To what extent did the law overlap with the current directive on investigations into enforced disappearance cases between the period of 1980 and 2000? The law reportedly limited the financial capacity of the General Directorate for the Search for Disappeared Persons, and granted privileges to the State armed forces, police and persons over age 80 who were accused of crimes against humanity. How would the State party prevent the law from allowing for impunity for perpetrators? To what extent were the views of civil society and victims’ associations on the law taken into account? What safeguards were in place to ensure that the State continued to comply with its international obligations related to enforced disappearance?
The Peruvian Constitutional Court had ruled on the inapplicability of the statute of limitations on crimes against humanity and recognised the continuous and permanent nature of enforced disappearances. Would the State party take the Constitutional Court’s decisions into account? How did law 32107 ensure the continuity of searches, investigations and reparations?
HORACIO RAVENNA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about measures taken to protect judges deciding on the constitutionality of law 32107. Reportedly, at least three judges had been affected by reprisals to date. What impact did the law have on the right to truth and justice for victims of human rights violations occurring before 1 July 2002? What requirements did the law impose for obtaining declarations of absence? How did the law affect victims’ access to reparations and what guarantees of non-repetition did it enforce? How did the law affect the goals of the national plan for the search for disappeared persons? Did the State party’s policy facilitate truth processes? What was the scope of administrative compensation processes? Did these proceedings benefit descendants of victims and their heirs? Was a death certificate necessary for obtaining reparations?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the State was responsible for determining the constitutionality of its laws. There were Constitutional Court proceedings underway that would determine whether law 32107 met the State party’s obligations under the Convention and international law. This process needed to be respected; the Committee was not mandated to determine the constitutionality of this law.
Under international law, it was up to courts to determine the nature and amounts of reparations provided to victims of violations. However, in Peru, victims could also acquire reparations from administrative processes. This administrative process did not impede investigations into enforced disappearances. The State party did not impose a disproportionate burden on victims to seek reparations; reparations had been provided to 56 individuals. There did not need to be a court decision for victims to receive reparations.
Law 32107 did not undermine criminal responsibility in cases of enforced disappearance. Civil society organizations and the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances had provided input on the law. It provided a better framework for implementation of the national plan for the search for disappeared persons from 1980 to 2000, seeking to accelerate investigations into these historic cases to ensure that the State met its obligations. The General Directorate of the Search for Disappeared Persons of the Ministry of Justice was responsible for search activities; it had its own budget and 49 staff. The law had had no impact on the General Directorate’s search activities.
Questions by Committee Experts
HORACIO RAVENNA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was mandated to monitor the alignment of the State’s legislation with the Convention. The Committee was troubled by reports of at least 15 incidents between 2022 and 2025 in which human rights defenders were subject to harassment at memory sites. There were reports of State officials attempting to downplay or remove memorial sites. How would the State party prevent the harassment of human rights defenders and incidents of this nature?
JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about the State party’s response to the declaration of the Public Prosecutor’s Office that at least 600 cases had been derailed as a result of the application of law 32107. What measures were in place to protect judges who spoke out against this legislation? To what extent did the law undermine the rulings of international courts related to enforced disappearance cases occurring before 2002? What steps had been taken to implement the recommendations of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances? The Working Group had said that the State party had failed to transparently consult with civil society organizations and victims’ associations on the law. How would it ensure respect for international standards in the implementation of the law?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said seeking to modify Peruvian legislation went beyond the Committee’s mandate. The views of each institution of the State needed to be respected. The Public Prosecutor’s Office had filed a complaint in the Constitutional Court claiming that law 32107 was unconstitutional. This indicated that the separation of powers and the State’s democratic checks and balances were working. There were guarantees in place ensuring that judges’ right to free speech was upheld. Judges had the opportunity to lodge cases before domestic courts and international bodies to seek remedies in cases of violations.
The Ministry of Justice had a unit that responded to allegations of violations against human rights defenders. There was no legislation regulating memorials and no link between law 32107 and memorial sites. The State party intended to take necessary measures to protect memorials.
The State party had already implemented the recommendations of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. Criminal prosecution of enforced disappearance cases was the responsibility of the Prosecutor’s Office and the courts. Law 32107 sought to speed up search processes and ensure that they were humanitarian. The State continued to carry out its responsibility to search for disappeared persons. The law had been scrutinised by persons directly linked to searches for disappeared persons.
Closing Remarks
LUIS FERNANDO DOMÍNGUEZ VERA, Director General of Human Rights of Peru and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the constructive dialogue. Peru was a democratic State that respected its international obligations and was guided by the principle of the separation of powers. The State had been assessing legitimate concerns related to law 32107. There was a possibility to appeal through the courts regarding the constitutionality of the law. Reparations provided to victims were administrative in nature and had no link with law 32107. Several reparation proceedings had been filed after the enactment of the law. The State party was working to establish clear timelines and methodologies for the team tasked with investigating enforced disappearances, for the benefit of the family members of victims. Mr. Domínguez Vera closed by reaffirming Peru’s commitment to the international human rights system.
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair, said this was one of the first times that the Committee had held a dialogue based on a stand-alone request for information under article 29 (4) of the Convention. Under this framework, the Committee had the ability to conduct dialogues with States parties it had already assessed when it sought additional information related to the implementation of the Convention. The Committee would issue concluding observations based on the dialogue. Mr. de Frouville closed by thanking all parties that had participated in the dialogue.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CR25.005E