Peru legal leaders warn of rights risks in executive decree proposal

The legal establishment in Peru is raising significant concerns regarding the Executive Branch's recent request for temporary legislative authority. Delia Espinoza, the dean of the Lima Bar Association, cautioned that granting these powers for a period of 120 days could lead to violations of fundamental rights. She emphasized that the current framework lacks necessary clarity and urged the President to reconsider the proposal rather than delegating legislative functions to the executive arm of government.

During a technical session of the Congress Justice and Human Rights Commission, Espinoza highlighted specific ambiguities in the proposed decree. She pointed to provisions concerning the use of force by the Armed Forces in support of the National Police, questioning whether the intent is to broaden the scope of lethal engagement. According to her assessment, such vague language risks creating a legal environment where accountability for excessive force is diminished, a trend she associated with undemocratic regimes rather than established democratic institutions.

Ambiguity in military force protocols

A central point of contention involves the modification of rules governing military intervention. Espinoza argued that the proposed changes do not clearly define the limits of force, leaving open the possibility of harsher application without clear judicial oversight. She expressed concern that the current legal transfer of civil jurisdiction to military authorities remains unaddressed in the new proposal. This omission, she noted, is particularly worrying as it fails to repeal existing mechanisms that may blur the line between civilian policing and military operations.

The dean stressed that Peru remains part of the international human rights system and that any legislative measure must respect these commitments. She warned that using delegated authority to bypass standard legislative processes could inadvertently undermine the rule of law. Espinoza called for a return to the bill to the Executive Branch, suggesting that the current approach risks cutting corners on due process and judicial review, which are essential safeguards for individual freedoms.

Urgency in addressing security statistics

While advocating for caution, Espinoza acknowledged the pressing security challenges facing the country. She cited statistics indicating that six deaths occur daily due to criminal activity, highlighting the immediate need for effective governance. However, she argued that this urgency should not justify the hasty adoption of vague executive powers. Instead, she urged the bicameral Congress to take the lead in crafting precise and accountable legislation that addresses these critical issues without compromising constitutional integrity.

The discussion underscores a broader tension in Peru between the desire for rapid security solutions and the need for robust legal safeguards. According to the report from GN geopolitics/rights (en-US), the debate reflects a deep-seated concern among legal professionals that executive overreach could set a dangerous precedent. The call for specific dialogue between the branches of state suggests that a collaborative approach is necessary to balance security imperatives with the protection of civil liberties.

Next steps for legislative review

The upcoming decision by the Justice and Human Rights Commission will be pivotal in determining the trajectory of this legislative proposal. Observers will be watching closely to see if the Congress adopts the recommendations of the bar association or proceeds with the Executive's request. The outcome will serve as a test of Peru's commitment to democratic norms and the separation of powers in the face of ongoing social unrest and security threats.