President Dina Boluarte slams court’s call to suspend Peru’s amnesty law – Al Jazeera

Report on Peru’s Proposed Amnesty Law and its Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A legislative proposal in Peru to grant amnesty for crimes committed during the nation’s 1985-2000 internal conflict has generated significant opposition from international human rights bodies. The proposed law directly challenges Peru’s commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This report details the legislation, the international response, and the direct implications for Peru’s progress on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Legislative Details and Governmental Stance

Provisions of the Amnesty Bill

The bill, passed by Peru’s Congress, is awaiting presidential action. Its primary provisions include:

• Granting amnesty to soldiers, police officers, and other security personnel for actions undertaken during the internal conflict.
• Establishing a “humanitarian” amnesty for individuals over the age of 70 who have been convicted of crimes committed during this period.

The Executive Position

President Dina Boluarte has defended the proposed legislation as a measure to achieve justice for security forces and has strongly criticized the intervention of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The President’s stance emphasizes national sovereignty, stating, “We are not anyone’s colony,” and asserts that the government is autonomous in its legislative processes, despite international legal obligations.

Contradictions with SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Erosion of Justice and Accountability (Target 16.3)

The amnesty law fundamentally undermines the objective of ensuring equal access to justice for all. By preventing the prosecution of gross human rights violations, it creates a framework of impunity that is antithetical to the rule of law.

• The conflict resulted in approximately 70,000 deaths, with civilians from rural and Indigenous communities constituting the majority of victims.
• The National Human Rights Coordinator estimates the law could nullify 156 existing convictions and terminate over 600 ongoing investigations into human rights abuses.
• This action directly contravenes the principle of accountability for perpetrators of serious crimes, a cornerstone of SDG 16.

Impact on SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

Perpetuating Discrimination Against Vulnerable Groups (Target 10.3)

The conflict disproportionately affected marginalized populations. The proposed amnesty law reinforces these historical inequalities by denying justice to the communities that suffered most.

• The majority of victims were from rural and Indigenous backgrounds, who were often caught between state forces and rebel groups like the Shining Path.
• Survivors, such as Francisco Ochoa from the village of Accomarca, have expressed feelings of outrage and betrayal, viewing the law as a denial of their suffering and right to redress.
• By shielding perpetrators, the state fails in its duty to protect its most vulnerable citizens and eliminate discriminatory practices that deny them equal access to legal recourse, thereby failing to advance SDG 10.

International Response and Implications for SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

United Nations and Inter-American Court Interventions

The global community has strongly condemned the bill, highlighting a breakdown in the cooperative partnerships essential for achieving the SDGs.

1. United Nations Experts: On July 17, nine UN human rights experts issued a statement of “alarm,” urging the Peruvian government to veto the bill. They stated the legislation would place Peru “in clear breach of its obligations under international law.”
2. Inter-American Court of Human Rights: On July 24, Court President Nancy Hernandez Lopez ordered Peru to “immediately suspend the processing” of the bill. The Court’s ruling was based on the finding that the law violates established legal precedent against amnesties for grave human rights violations, such as extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances.

The Peruvian government’s rejection of this international guidance represents a significant challenge to the framework of global cooperation and shared responsibility that underpins SDG 17.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The primary Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) addressed in the article is SDG 16, which focuses on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions is central to the article’s narrative. The entire conflict revolves around a proposed amnesty law that would affect the justice process for past human rights violations. The article discusses the roles of national institutions (Peru’s Congress and President), international judicial bodies (the Inter-American Court of Human Rights), and the fundamental principles of accountability and the rule of law. The tension between national sovereignty and international human rights law, as articulated by President Boluarte and the Inter-American Court, directly engages with the core themes of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the focus on justice, accountability, and institutional integrity, the following targets under SDG 16 are relevant:

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
   
   Although the conflict occurred in the past, this target is relevant as the article deals with the consequences of that violence. The text explicitly states, “Some 70,000 people were killed in the internal conflict,” highlighting the scale of past violence for which justice is now being sought. The amnesty law is a direct response to the legal aftermath of these deaths and abuses.
2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   
   This is the most prominent target. The proposed amnesty law is described as a measure that would “shield security forces from accountability for the atrocities” and “prevent the criminal prosecution and condemnation of individuals who committed gross human rights violations.” This directly undermines the rule of law and access to justice for victims, such as the survivors from Accomarca who feel “outraged and betrayed.” The intervention by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which ordered Peru to “immediately suspend the processing” of the bill, underscores the conflict between the proposed national law and international legal standards for justice.
3. Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels… to prevent violence and combat… crime.
   
   This target is relevant due to the clash between Peru’s government and international institutions. The article highlights that UN human rights experts and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights view the bill as putting Peru in “clear breach of its obligations under international law.” President Boluarte’s response, stating “we will not allow the intervention of the Inter-American Court,” indicates a breakdown in international cooperation aimed at strengthening justice and human rights mechanisms. The court’s previous rulings against such amnesty laws are cited as a standard that the current bill violates, pointing to the role of international bodies in building capacity for justice.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains specific data and qualitative information that can serve as indicators for measuring progress (or regression) towards the identified targets.

Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

• For Target 16.3 (Promote the rule of law and access to justice): The article provides a direct quantitative indicator of the potential impact of the amnesty law. The “National Human Rights Coordinator… estimates that the country’s latest amnesty law could overturn 156 convictions and disrupt more than 600 ongoing investigations.” These numbers serve as a concrete measure of the law’s effect on access to justice and the functioning of the judicial system in prosecuting human rights violations. A decrease in these numbers would indicate a failure to uphold the rule of law.
• For Target 16.1 (Reduce violence and death rates): The article provides a historical indicator of the scale of the conflict: “Some 70,000 people were killed in the internal conflict.” While this is a historical figure, it serves as a baseline for understanding the magnitude of the crimes for which justice is being pursued. Progress on accountability for these deaths is a key part of addressing the legacy of this violence.
• For Target 16.a (Strengthen national institutions through international cooperation): A key qualitative indicator is the state of compliance with international human rights rulings. The article details how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights “ordered Peru to ‘immediately suspend the processing’ of the bill,” citing that it “violated previous rulings against such amnesty laws.” The Peruvian government’s decision to either comply with or defy this order is a direct indicator of its commitment to strengthening its institutions in line with international human rights standards. President Boluarte’s defiance suggests a negative trend for this indicator.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: aljazeera.com