He Congress last Thursday confirmed its decision to insist on the so-called ‘The Impunidad’Despite the fact that last November the Supreme Court of Justice deemed it unconstitutionaldisproportionate and pointed out that judges should not enforce it.
With 17 votes in favor, five votes against and two abstentions, the Permanent Commission of Congress approved in a second and final vote the project that proposes to make a normative interpretation of the aforementioned law, reducing to one year the period of suspension of the prescription for criminal proceedings.
The Permanent Commission, which remains in office during the current parliamentary recess, ratified the ‘Impunity Law’ on the proposal of Congressman Flavio Cruz (Peru Libre).
Congressmen from Fuerza Popular, Alianza para el Progreso (APP), Perú Libre, Podemos, the Magisterial Bloc and Perú Bicentenario spoke in favour. Only Democratic Change – Together for Peru and Popular Renewal opposed it. Meanwhile, Avanza País decided to abstain.
The ‘Impunity Law’ was used by Congress President Alejandro Soto last August to avoid criminal proceedings, which is why it was also called the ‘Soto Law’.
In addition, other politicians used it in their criminal proceedings, including former President Martín Vizcarra, former Supreme Judge César Hinostroza, former Fujimori leader Joaquín Ramírez, and fugitive Vladimir Cerón, leader of Perú Libre.
This was the second and final voting in the Standing Committee:
| bench | Representative in the Permanent | a favor | against | In dieting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cruz’s proposal had previously been approved by Congress’s Justice and Human Rights Commission, chaired by Américo González (Peru Libre).
The opinion accepted in the second vote this Thursday is:
The statute of limitations is the time given by law to investigate, prosecute and punish a crime. In the case of ordinary prescription, it is equal to the maximum penalty for the crime prosecuted. That is, if a crime has a maximum prison sentence of six years, the period of ordinary prescription will also be six years.
Meanwhile, in extraordinary prescription it is a maximum fine and half that. For example, if the maximum sentence for a crime is eight years in prison, the period of extraordinary prescription is 12 years.
Furthermore, a suspension of the statute of limitations is established when the initiation of a criminal procedure depends on other prior procedures, such as the lifting of the immunity of a senior official. This is more important in the case of immune officials (presidents, congressmen, ministers, top judges and top prosecutors), since the procedures to lift their immunity in Congress are usually lengthy.
The Supreme Court of Justice indicated in November that judges should not apply the “impunity law” in order to prioritise constitutional norms regarding public or citizen security, the value of material justice and jurisdictional protection.
When the ‘Impunity Law’ was approved by Congress last May, the executive did not comply. On the contrary, President Dina Boluart announced it two weeks later.
At the time, former Justice Minister Daniel Mouret avoided taking responsibility for promulgating the law. “We respect the separation of powers. […] We can see that as long as there is a constitutional violation, there is a power violation. “We are not a second instance, we do not review Congressional decisions.” he said in a press conference.
Beneficiaries
Criminal lawyer Andy Carrion assured that the approval of the opinion interpreting the ‘Immunity Law’ implies “clearly a conflict of interest within the congressmen themselves, who would benefit from the law.”
“This will first of all benefit those who are already being prosecuted. It favors corrupt people and those who have tried to delay the procedures in order to create a statute of limitations,” he said.
Former anti-corruption prosecutor Martin Salas said the law affects the state’s power to prosecute and punish those who commit crimes.
“This law can be used by all those who are being criminally harassed and even those who have been sentenced in the first instance. Among them we find Vladimir Cerón, Martín Vizcarra [Alejandro] “Soto used his own standard among others,” he said.
However, Carrion, Salas and criminal lawyer Vladimir Padilla pointed out that judges still cannot enforce the law.
Padilla explained that magistrates have the power to exercise broad control: “A judge is not obliged to apply a legal norm, a law, when he believes it is unconstitutional. The judge can say that, as long as it is against the Constitution, he does not apply it.”
Carrion said that congressmen, “seeing a certain rebelliousness on the part of the judges, have insisted on the approval of an interpretive law”, but despite this, there is always the possibility that the judges decide not to apply it. In fact, I think that is what will happen.
They also approve of an opinion on organized crime and raids
In a second and final vote, the Congressional Permanent Commission also approved legislation that revises the definition of a criminal organization and requires raids to be conducted in the presence of the person involved and their lawyer.
The decision was approved by a vote of 12 in favour, three against and nine absent.
The congressmen who voted in favor belong to Perú Libre, Podemos, the Magisterial Bloc and Popular Renewal. Meanwhile, those from Fuerza Popular voted to abstain.
The approved text states that a criminal organization will be considered any group “with a complex developed structure and greater operational capacity”, made up of three or more people who distribute roles in a concerted and coordinated way for the commission of crimes punishable by more than six years in prison.
Furthermore, it states that the Prosecutor’s Office will not be able to request the judiciary to block and freeze bank accounts linked to pension income or to assets and properties of political parties.
Meanwhile, with regard to the search, it has been established that the search shall be carried out in the presence of the interested party and his attorney, and if the latter is not available, someone shall be provided ex officio.