Judge Luján warns about a lawsuit that threatens the Law on the Extinction of Domain.

Manuel Luján Túpez, a Supreme Judge and national coordinator of the Specialized Subsystem for the Extinction of Domain, has expressed his deep concern regarding the constitutional challenge filed by defender Josué Gutiérrez against the Law of Extinction of Domain. According to Luján, this legal action represents a serious setback in the fight against serious crimes, including corruption. The extinction of domain is a mechanism that allows the State to recover assets used or acquired through criminal activities, and its weakening could benefit those operating outside the law. Luján explains that the extinction of domain is based on the premise that assets, when used to commit crimes, must be subject to prosecution. This includes, for example, vehicles used in contract killings or properties acquired with money from corruption. This approach differs from the criminal process that seeks to sanction those responsible for the crime. In Peru, the experience of other countries in this area has led to regulations that allow for the recovery of assets without waiting for a criminal conviction, something Luján considers crucial today. The Supreme Judge points out that the regulatory framework in Peru has been influenced by experiences from other countries in the region and around the world. Peruvian legislation has advanced to allow the extinction of domain to operate independently of criminal sentences, enabling a more agile and effective response to the evolution of criminal organizations. This approach seeks to prevent assets used for crime from remaining in the hands of their owners while judicial processes are prolonged. Regarding international normative trends, Luján mentions three fundamental conventions that Peru has signed: the Vienna Convention against Drug Trafficking, the Palermo Convention on Organized Crime, and the Mérida Convention against Corruption. These agreements establish the need to dismantle criminal structures through the recovery of assets involved in criminal activities. The recommendation from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in 2003 emphasizes that the extinction of domain should be an independent process and not contingent upon a criminal conviction. Other countries, such as the United States, have implemented regulations that allow for confiscation without conviction, thus facilitating the seizure of assets of criminal origin more efficiently. In the Peruvian context, Luján emphasizes that it is essential not to revert to models that have proven ineffective in the past, which is especially relevant given the complexities of organized crime today. However, the recent challenge from defender Gutiérrez is not an isolated incident. Luján has warned that initiatives are also emerging in Congress aimed at limiting the extinction of domain. In his view, these proposals could not only create distortions in the fight against crime but also neglect the need to discuss and consult with the competent entities regarding the protection of fundamental rights and the effectiveness of existing measures. The judge mentions that since the implementation of Legislative Decree 1373, more than 102 million dollars in criminal assets have been recovered, contrasting this achievement with the mere 6 million recovered in the twelve years of a previous model. This comparison highlights the effectiveness of the current legislation, which has allowed intervention in critical situations, such as contract killings, where assets are essential for the continuation of the crime. With compelling figures, Luján states that in the last five and a half years, 1,297 final rulings related to the extinction of domain have been issued, a number that demonstrates the dynamism of the system and its capacity to act. However, the risk that the Constitutional Court may address the constitutional challenge lies in the possibility of reestablishing mechanisms that have been tested and rejected in the past. Luján concludes by emphasizing that the extinction of domain is a vital tool in the fight against organized crime, drug trafficking, and corruption. Modifying or limiting this law could allow criminals to continue operating with impunity, using frontmen and mechanisms that the system itself seeks to dismantle. The concern for the future of this legislation is palpable, and its debate becomes urgent in the current context of the country, where insecurity and corruption are issues that demand attention and decisive action.