[ad_1]
president Boluarte The President of the Congress of the Republic, Alejandro Soto, sent a letter to the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court-IDH), Nancy Hernández López, “Regret” Resolution on the regulation of restricting anti-human images.
In the letter, Boluarte and Soto referred to the July 1 resolution in which the Inter-American Court required the Peruvian state to The norms pushed by Congress to establish a statute of limitations for crimes against humanity committed before 2002 were not adopted, had no effect, or were not given validity. Finally, signatures. Approved by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on July 4.
In view of this, they believe Peru is a democratic country with its own internal mechanisms to control the laws approvedEither through decentralized control by the judiciary or centralized control by the Constitutional Court.
“for this reason, We deeply regret that the Inter-American Court, in its decision, implies that Peru is not a constitutional state. It lacks the checks and balances and controls of public power found in a democratic republic. Instead, it will seek to establish a superpower within our borders that has the ability to direct and dictate how its legitimate institutions operate.”, authorities of both countries said.
Furthermore, Boluarte and Soto believe that the Inter-American Court, through its resolution on crimes against humanity, Beyond its powers and beyond the “supporting role it must assume”.
“We categorically reject the provisions of the July 1, 2024 resolution, as their granting as a temporary measure implies ignorance of the principles of national sovereignty and the separation of powers, and In practice, it requires that state power give up the exercise of its constitutional powers and give way to a supranational body that no longer assists in intervention.but, quite paradoxically, it provides for the assumption of full control over state tasks by determining which tasks cannot be performed.”, they emphasized.
“We regret that the Inter-American Court issued a resolution that exceeded its powers and distorted the figures on provisional measures.The temporary and special nature of the law in order to ensure the fundamental result is now maintained, and the practice of arbitrarily expanding the scope of application to new situations that are not directly related to the judgment at the time is maintained under the pretext of compliance supervision sentencing, which clearly violates the auxiliary role it must assume.”, they added.
elsewhere, The presidents of both branches of government rejected the practice of the International Human Rights Commission court to use terms such as “internal armed conflict” to refer to the era of terrorism.because they believe that “this offends the civic conscience of the country and the memory of thousands of Peruvians killed by terrorists.”
They also asked the supranational body to “correct its excesses in the interests of self-preservation”. Because they believe that “they ultimately undermine the Inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights and affect national sovereignty.”
Dina Boluarte did not comment on the specification
At a press conference held at the Government Palace on Monday, The head of state did not respond when asked whether he would comply with the law limiting the number of crimes against humanity..
“As for the anti-humanity bill, it has not yet reached the executive branch, so We hope that in the upcoming corresponding period, the departments will be able to review it and we will pay attention to this view.”, he said.
case
On July 1, the Inter-American Court asked the Peruvian government to The bill was not passed, is invalid or has not been given effect It provides for a statute of limitations for crimes against humanity committed before 2002.
include, Peru is required to submit a report on its compliance with the project by August 9, 2024or (which is finally approved a few days later), and must then continue to report to the court every three months, counting from the last report submitted, until the court decides to lift their discharge.
[ad_2]
Source link
