Controversy in Peru: Prosecutors reject rule that allows the National Police to investigate crimes.

The recent approval in Congress of the substitute text that allows the National Police of Peru (PNP) to investigate certain crimes without the supervision of a prosecutor has sparked an intense debate in the public and political sphere of the country. The Board of Supreme Prosecutors has expressed its rejection of this regulation, arguing that it undermines the competencies of the Public Ministry and may lead to institutional weakening in the fight against impunity. The measure, supported by some former ministers of the Interior and high-ranking police officials, aims to strengthen the PNP's capacity to investigate crimes more efficiently. However, the supreme prosecutors have voiced their concern that this initiative contravenes Article 159 of the Constitution, which guarantees the autonomy of the Public Ministry in conducting criminal investigations. This conflict of competencies has led the Board to request a reevaluation of the regulation by legislators before its second vote, scheduled for the coming days. In its statement, the Board of Supreme Prosecutors warned that the implementation of this regulation will not provide effective solutions against crime, but could result in an increase in impunity by diminishing the power of the Public Ministry. "Instead of improving the tools for prosecuting crime, this legislation favors the interests of those seeking to evade justice," they stated, addressing both legislators and the public. One of the most critical points of opposition to this regulation is the fear that the preliminary investigation of vital crimes will be conducted by the PNP, which could lead to dual direction in investigations, limiting the control that the Public Ministry exercises over its own investigative process. This change in responsibilities could result in prosecutors being forced to rely on reports and analyses from the PNP, affecting the quality and impartiality of the investigations. Prosecutors have also highlighted that, according to the proposal, forensic examinations would be conducted solely by the Criminalistics Directorate of the Police, limiting access to a network of trained experts currently part of the Public Ministry. Prosecutors have argued that this measure is not only unconstitutional but also ignores the reality of the logistical and operational capabilities of the PNP, which has faced criticism regarding its infrastructure and resources for conducting effective investigations. In a context where the Executive had already attempted to implement similar measures through Legislative Decrees, the Board has reiterated that they have filed a lawsuit of unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court, which is awaiting a hearing. This situation raises a question about the future of the autonomy of the Public Ministry and the capacity of the PNP to act as an investigative body. Furthermore, the supreme prosecutors have hinted at concerns about the implications of this regulation on the investigation of high-ranking state officials. If the PNP were to take over the investigation of cases involving presidents, ministers, and congress members, it could create a scenario of conflict of interest and lack of transparency in investigative processes. The controversy surrounding this regulation reflects a broader debate about security, justice, and the role of institutions in Peruvian society. While some advocate for greater autonomy of the PNP in its investigative functions, others insist that this measure could jeopardize the independence of the judicial system. The words of the Board of Supreme Prosecutors resonate strongly: "The international community is attentive to legislative movements that may affect the rule of law in our country." The responsibility now rests with the legislators, who must weigh the implications of their decision not only for the present but also for the future of the Peruvian judicial system. In conclusion, the rejection by the Board of Supreme Prosecutors of the regulation that allows the PNP to conduct preliminary investigations into crimes raises a call to attention regarding the need to respect the separation of powers and ensure the autonomy of institutions. The discussion remains open and will be crucial in defining the course of justice in Peru.