Congress overhauls ‘Impunity Act’ despite Supreme Court opposition: Who benefits | principle


He Congress Last Thursday it reaffirmed its decision to insist on the so-called ‘Le Impunitat’Although the Supreme Court of Justice last November It was held to be unconstitutionaldisproportionate and pointed out that judges should not use it.

With 17 votes in favor, 5 votes against, and two abstentions, the Permanent Commission of the Congress approved the proposed plan to implement the true interpretation of the aforementioned law in a second and final vote, reducing the suspension period to one year. Prescription for criminal proceedings.

The Permanent Commission, in office during the current parliamentary recess, approved the ‘Impunity Law’ on the proposal of Congressman Flavio Cruz (Perú Libre).

Congressmen from Fuerza Popular, Alianza para el Progreso (APP), Perú Libre, Podemos, the Magisterial Block and Perú Bicentenario spoke in support. Only Democratic Change – Together for Peru and Popular Renewal opposed it. Meanwhile, Avanza País did not vote.

Congress leader Alejandro Soto used the ‘Impunity Act’ last August to escape criminal proceedings, so it is also known as the ‘Soto Act’.

In addition, other politicians used it in their criminal activities, including former President Martín Vizcarra, former Supreme Justice Cesar Hinostroza, former Fujimori leader Joaquín Ramírez, and fugitive Vladimir Cerón, leader of Peru Libre.

This is the second and final vote of the Standing Committee:

Bench Permanent Representatives Pros vs In neglect
Popular Force (22) 6 5 0 0
Alliance for Progress (12) 4 2 0 0
Free Peru (11) 4 4 0 0
Democratic Transition – Together for Peru (11) 2 0 2 0
Podemos Peru (11) 2 2 0 0
Magisterial Volume (9) 2 2 0 0
Popular Action (9) 2 1 1 0
Popular Updates (9) 2 0 2 0
Developments in the country (6) 3 0 0 2
Peru Bicentennial (5) 1 1 0 0
We Are Peru (5) 1 0 0 0
Parliamentary Unity and Dialogue (0 since dissolution last March) 1 0 0 0
Total: 30 17 5 2
See also  Allies Bolster Ukraine With More Arms Pledges; But there is no sign of a US-German tank deal

Cruz’s proposal was approved by the US Commission on Justice and Human Rights, chaired by America Gonza (Perú Libre).

This was the opinion approved in the second vote held on Thursday:

The statute of limitations is the time allowed by law to investigate, try and punish the commission of a crime. In the case of ordinary prescription, it is equal to the maximum sentence for the offense charged. That is, if an offense carries a maximum sentence of six years, the term for ordinary prescription is also six years.

Meanwhile, it is the maximum penalty and half for an abnormal prescription. For example, if a crime carries a maximum sentence of eight years in prison, the term for an extraordinary drug is 12 years.

Also, suspension of the statute of limitations is established when the initiation of a criminal process is dependent on other prior procedures such as raising the immunity of a senior official. This is especially important in cases of immunity-bearing officials (presidents, members of Congress, ministers, chief justices, and attorneys general) because the processes for raising immunity in Congress are usually lengthy.

In November, the Supreme Court pointed out that judges should not use the ‘law of impunity’ to override the constitutional norm that mentions public or citizen safety, the value of substantive justice and jurisdictional protection.

When the ‘Immunity Act’ was approved by Congress last May, the Executive Committee ignored it. Instead, two weeks later President Tina Polwarte announced it.

At the time, former justice minister Daniel Mouret avoided taking responsibility for promulgating the law. “We respect separation of powers. […] As long as there is a constitutional violation, we can observe that there are abuses of power. “We’re not the second instance, and we’re not reviewing the decisions of Congress.” He said in a press conference.

See also  The Lord of Miracles: The image of Cristo Moreno is already in the Church of the Nazarenes


Criminal lawyer Andy Carrion asserted that the approval of the opinion explaining the ‘Immunity Act’ “clearly represents a conflict of interest within the very Congressmen who benefit from the law”.

“This above all benefits those who have already been prosecuted. It also favors the corrupt and those who try to delay the processes to create a statute of limitations,” he noted.

Martin Salas, a former anti-corruption prosecutor, added that the law affects the state’s power to prosecute and punish criminals.

“This Act can be used by victims of criminal harassment and even those convicted in the first instance. Among them we find Vladimir Ceron and Martin 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 apply the law.

Padilla explained that magistrates have the power to exercise wide-ranging control: “A judge is not bound to apply a legal provision, a law, when he deems it unconstitutional. A judge can say he won’t use it unless it’s unconstitutional.

“Congressmen, noting a certain reluctance on the part of the judges, pushed for the approval of the interpretive statute,” Carrion said, “but despite this, there is always the possibility that the judges will decide not to use it.” Actually, I think that’s what happens.

They also recognize the concept of organized crime and extortion

In a second and final vote, the Congressional Standing Committee approved legislation that would change the definition of a criminal organization and require that trials be conducted in the presence of the person concerned and their lawyer.

See also  June 7 will not be a national holiday: Why didn't the administration make the rule official? | Answers

It was decided to vote with 12 votes in favour, 3 votes against and nine abstentions.

Congressmen who voted in favor belonged to Peru Libre, Podemos, the Magisterial Bloc and Popular Renewal. Meanwhile, the Fuerza Popular did not vote.

The authorized text states that a criminal organization “having a complex developed structure and high operational efficiency” is considered any group, which is composed of three or more persons, in a coordinated and coordinated manner, distributing roles for the commission of punishable crimes. More than six years in prison.

It further points out that the Prosecutor’s Office cannot request the judiciary to freeze and freeze bank accounts linked to pension income or related to the property and assets of political parties.

Meanwhile, it establishes that in connection with the search, the search shall be conducted in the presence of the interested party and his lawyer, and if the latter is not available, one shall be officially served.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here