The Prosecutor's Office requests the annulment of the registration of the Antauro party and the strengthening of democracy in Peru.

The recent request from the Public Prosecutor's Office to the Supreme Court to annul the registration of the National Alliance of Workers, Farmers, University Students, Reservists, and Workers, commonly known as Antauro, marks a crucial moment in the political history of Peru. This request is based on Article 14 of the Political Organizations Law, which allows for the declaration of a political party's illegality due to "antidemocratic conduct." The prosecution seeks not only to cancel the registration of the group but also to disqualify its leaders and close all associated locations, thus shutting the door on any future re-registration. The Antauro Humala case presents an unprecedented challenge for the Peruvian judicial system. Several expert voices have noted that this is the first time the legality of a political organization is being evaluated from the perspective of its principles and the behavior of its leaders. Throughout history, other countries have implemented mechanisms to exclude from the political landscape those groups that promote extreme ideologies, such as Nazism in Germany or organizations linked to terrorism in Spain. Therefore, the upcoming process is not only important but could also set a precedent for the future of the democratic system in Peru. However, the necessity of reaching this point indicates the systemic failures that have allowed figures like Antauro Humala to grow in the political arena. His figure, which emerged after leading an armed uprising that resulted in the deaths of four police officers, represents a system that has repeatedly failed to protect the most fundamental democratic principles. Despite the severity of his crimes, Humala has managed to maintain a presence in political debate, something that should not be possible in a consolidated democracy. The first failure that has led to this situation lies within the penitentiary system. Humala was released earlier than warranted, thanks to a sentence reduction based on supposed work done in prison that he himself denied having performed. This decision by the National Penitentiary Institute (INPE) has sparked criticism regarding how penitentiary benefits are granted, especially to those who have committed such grave offenses. Analysts had previously warned that such reductions should not apply to those convicted of serious crimes, which calls into question the effectiveness of the penitentiary system. The second error occurred at the National Jury of Elections (JNE), where the registration of the Antauro party was allowed in December of last year. The president of the JNE, Jorge Luis Salas Arenas, justified this decision with reasoning that ignored the obvious connection between Humala and the group. The lack of a rigorous evaluation of the party's ideology and its ties to an individual who had openly challenged the democratic order is a clear symptom of an institution that needs to be strengthened. Congress has also been pointed out as one of the actors that has failed in this process. The lack of approval for a constitutional reform that would prohibit those convicted of serious crimes from running for the presidency reflects a lack of political commitment to defending democratic principles. The refusal to advance this reform has largely been motivated by political calculations that fear affecting historical figures of Fujimorism, such as Alberto Fujimori. In this context, the request from the Public Prosecutor's Office presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to act decisively and responsibly. The country's history is watching how they will confront this dilemma, and their response will reflect the judicial system's commitment to democracy and respect for human rights. The seriousness of the situation demands a swift and firm response, not only to annul Antauro's registration but also to send a clear message of zero tolerance towards extremist ideology and violence. The Supreme Court has in its hands not only the decision on the legality of a political party but also the reaffirmation of the rule of law and the importance of protecting democratic values. The decision they make will be fundamental in restoring public confidence in institutions and ensuring that the past does not repeat itself, guaranteeing a future where democracy prevails over violence and intolerance. Finally, civil society also plays a crucial role in this process. It is imperative to maintain active dialogue and constant vigilance over the actions of public institutions. Citizen engagement is essential to ensure that democratic values are strengthened and that setbacks on the path to a fairer and more inclusive Peru are not allowed. The struggle for democracy is a collective effort that requires the active participation of all.