Government enacts 'Impunity' law amid criticism and patriotic celebrations.

In an act that has unleashed a torrent of reactions both within and outside the political sphere, the Government has enacted the law reiterating the terms of the recently questioned 'Impunity Law.' This regulation, approved by Congress in May 2023, has generated intense debate in the country, especially following the clear opposition from the Supreme Court, which has deemed this legislation unconstitutional. This backing from the Executive comes in the context of national celebrations, adding a layer of complexity to the situation. The promulgation of this regulation was announced through the legal norms bulletin of El Peruano on July 28, coinciding with the anniversary of the country's independence. In this context, the Government has decided to reinforce the guidelines on the application of the now-modified Article 84 of the Penal Code, specifically regarding the statute of limitations for crimes. The new legislation allows for an extension of up to one year in the statute of limitations, an aspect that has been harshly criticized by various sectors of society. The debate surrounding the 'Impunity Law' has been intense and polarizing. In the Permanent Commission, the bill was approved on July 1 with 17 votes in favor, 5 against, and 2 abstentions. The proposal, pushed by Flavio Cruz from the Peru Libre party, argues that the modification is necessary to guarantee the rights of the accused within what is considered a "guarantee-based accusatory system." However, many critics argue that this approach favors those involved in serious crimes, which could hinder justice. The Supreme Court, in a plenary agreement issued in November 2023, made its position clear by declaring that the 'Impunity Law' is unconstitutional and that judges should not apply it. This statement has raised concerns about how justice will be administered in the country and whether this new regulation will be effectively dismissed by the judicial system. According to the justices, the statute of limitations must be fair and proportional, which, in their view, is not met with a one-year limit. The promulgation of the regulation amidst the National Holidays has been interpreted as an attempt by the Government to divert attention from the criticisms received. Despite legal warnings and ethical objections, the Executive seems determined to maintain its stance. This raises questions about the Government's commitment to the rule of law and respect for judicial decisions. On the other hand, the reaction from the public has been swift. Human rights groups and civil society organizations have expressed concern about the impact this law will have on the fight against corruption and other crimes. Dissenting voices argue that the 'Impunity Law' favors the impunity of the accused and could undermine efforts to achieve justice in emblematic cases. Some political analysts suggest that this measure could have repercussions on the legitimacy of the Government. Supporting a regulation deemed unconstitutional could erode public trust in institutions and the judicial system itself. Furthermore, the political polarization that has arisen from this decision could complicate governance in the country even further. With the situation constantly evolving, it is expected that Congress will resume the debate on the 'Impunity Law' in the coming days. Pressure from the opposition and civil society could influence the direction of future legislative decisions. Meanwhile, the Executive faces a dilemma: how to balance the approval of laws that are well-received by its political base while not neglecting the demands for justice and equity that the public is calling for. In summary, the enactment of the regulation reiterating the 'Impunity Law' in a context of judicial and social criticism highlights the existing tensions between the legislative and judicial powers in the country. The coming months will be crucial in determining the future of this legislation and measuring the impact it will have on the already fragile trust that citizens place in their institutions.