Peru president signs amnesty law for police and soldiers accused of atrocities
During the conflict, the Shining Path and Tupac Amaru rebel groups waged insurgencies in which an estimated 70,000 people were killed and more than 20,000 disappeared, according to Peru's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).Boluarte, elected in 2022 as the the country's first female president, said the Peruvian government was paying tribute to the forces who - she said - fought against terrorism and in defence of democracy.Human rights organisations have condemned the law. Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, called it "a betrayal of Peruvian victims" that "undermines decades of efforts to ensure accountability for atrocities".United Nations experts and Amnesty International had urged Boluarte to veto the bill, saying that it violated Peru's duty to investigate and prosecute grave abuses including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture and sexual violence.UN experts said the amnesty could halt or overturn more than 600 pending trials and 156 convictions.The TRC found that state agents, notably the armed forces, were responsible for 83% of documented sexual violence cases.Last year, Peru adopted a statute of limitations for crimes against humanity committed before 2002, effectively shutting down hundreds of investigations into alleged crimes committed during the fighting.The initiative benefited late president Alberto Fujimori, who was jailed for atrocities - including the massacre of civilians by the army - but released from prison in 2023 on humanitarian grounds. He died in September 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Human rights watchdog warns police to rethink 'heavy-handed' Palestine protest clampdown amid fears it could have a 'chilling' effect on free speech
Britain's human rights watchdog has warned against the 'heavy-handed policing' of Palestine protests amid fears it could have a 'chilling' effect on free speech. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has written to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley to remind them that the 'right to protest is a cornerstone of any healthy democracy'. The letter, from EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner, said the notion that a peaceful demonstration could attract disproportionate police attention 'undermines confidence in our human rights protections'. Baroness Falkner said any interference with protest rights 'must be lawful and assessed case-by-case'. She added: 'Heavy-handed policing or blanket approaches risk creating a chilling effect, deterring citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly through fear of possible consequences. 'This concern extends beyond those directly affected by police engagement to the broader health of our democracy, because the perception that peaceful protest may attract disproportionate police attention undermines confidence in our human rights protections.' The letter, from EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner, said the notion that a peaceful demonstration could attract disproportionate police attention 'undermines confidence in our human rights protections' Baroness Falkner also raised concerns about 'reports of police engagement with individuals participating in forms of protest that are not linked to any proscribed organisation'. The commission referenced a report by the Guardian newspaper about a woman said to have been threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and signs saying 'Free Gaza' and 'Israel is committing genocide'. The woman was reportedly told by police that her demonstration in Canterbury, Kent, in July expressed views supportive of Palestine Action, an organisation which has been banned by the Government. The woman said neither of her signs mentioned Palestine Action and that she had told police she did not support any proscribed organisations. Kent Police confirmed it had 'received correspondence from a legal firm representing a person spoken to by officers in Canterbury on July 14 2025' after the Guardian reported the woman is taking legal action against the force. The EHRC said Government and police authorities must 'ensure that all officers receive clear and consistent guidance on their human rights obligations' when it comes to protests. 'This guidance should ensure that the appropriate balance is maintained between public safety and the protection of essential human rights,' Baroness Falkner added. Palestine Action was proscribed by the UK Government in July, with the ban meaning that membership of, or support for, the group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. More than 500 people were arrested last weekend on suspicion of displaying an item in support of a proscribed group, as demonstrations took place in central London. Downing Street has described Palestine Action as 'violent' and said it has committed 'significant injury' as well as criminal damage, adding that evidence and security assessments shared in closed court supported its proscription. Palestine Action said Downing Street's accusations were 'false and defamatory' and 'disproven by the Government's own intelligence assessment'. Asked for their response to the EHRC letter, the Home Office referred to Ms Cooper's previous statement about last week's march, in which she said: 'The right to protest is one we protect fiercely but this is very different from displaying support for this one specific and narrow, proscribed organisation.' The Metropolitan Police declined to comment when asked for their response to the letter. It comes after a chaotic London march last Saturday saw more than a staggering 500 activists arrested - bringing the total to over 700 since July 7, when the group was proscribed. During a day of mayhem and farce, Left-wing protesters swamped London's Parliament Square on August 9 in support of the organisation, which was proscribed by the Government last month as a terrorist group. Hundreds held placards declaring 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action' in deliberate 'idiotic' acts of law-breaking designed to overwhelm police resources and the courts. Later that day, the Metropolitan Police announced more than 360 people had been detained following the scenes of disorder - at an estimated cost of about £3million. However, in an update on August 10, the Met said the number of total arrests had skyrocketed to 532 - with 522 of these being for people allegedly displaying placards supporting the proscribed terror group. Protesters were accused of a 'colossal' waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money after seemingly getting deliberately arrested by officers. Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police announced that a further 60 people will be prosecuted for 'showing support for the proscribed terrorist group Palestine Action. Stephen Parkinson, Director of Public Prosecutions, said: 'The decisions that we have announced today are the first significant numbers to come out of the recent protests, and many more can be expected in the next few weeks. We are ready to make swift decisions in all cases where arrests have been made. The public has a democratic right to protest peacefully in this country, and I understand the depth of feeling around the horrific scenes in Gaza. 'However, Palestine Action is now a proscribed terrorist organisation and those who have chosen to break the law will be subject to criminal proceedings under the Terrorism Act. 'When protest conduct crosses the line from lawful activity into criminality, we have a duty to enforce the law. 'People should be clear about the real-life consequences for anyone choosing to support Palestine Action. A terrorism conviction can severely impact your life and career – it can restrict your ability to travel overseas and work in certain professions. 'I urge people to think very carefully about their actions at protests. Anyone who chooses to disobey the law will have to face the consequences.'
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Putin jabs Joe Biden by saying he would have never invaded Ukraine if Trump were in charge
Vladimir Putin pointed the finger at former President Joe Biden for allowing the war with Ukraine to materialize. The Russian leader confirmed that if President Donald Trump were still in office at the time in 2022, he wouldn't have started the war more than three years ago. Putin said during remarks at a joint press conference in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday that he warned Biden that he shouldn't let the situation progress to 'the point of no return when it would come to hostilities.' 'I said it quite directly back then that it's a big mistake,' Putin said, according to a real-time translation. He insisted: 'President Trump saying that if he was the president back then there would be no war, and I'm quite sure that would indeed be so, I can confirm that.' Putin's comments were the ultimate flattery on an impressionable president, who he was desperately trying to keep from fully embracing Ukraine and Europe's cause. Trump has repeatedly claimed that he would have been able to use his relationship with Putin to stop Russia from invading Ukraine if he were reelected in 2020. On June 16, 2021, Biden and Putin met in-person for a summit in Geneva, Switzerland amid rising tensions between Moscow and Washington, D.C. Just eight months later on February 24, 2022, Putin invaded Ukraine, kick-starting a deadly war that still wages on today and has left thousands dead and displaced. Trump's negotiations with Putin appear to be Ukraine's last chance to get an end to the bloodshed and land grab by Russia. European leaders have expressed concern that Trump will concede too much land, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has recognized that a peace deal might need to include handing over more land area to Putin's regime. President Putin said on Friday that having a good trustworthy business relationship with Trump makes him confident that 'we can come to see the end of the conflict in Ukraine.' Though the two leaders acknowledged there is still a far way to go. Additionally, no ceasefire was announced in their joint press conference. 'I have every reason to believe that moving down this path we can come to see the end of the conflict in Ukraine,' Putin said at the end of his remarks. And if the greeting between Trump and Putin was any indication of their relationship, it's very likely the two are chummy. The two were smiling as they saw each other in the flesh for the first time since 2018. With an abundance of physical contact and a round of applause from Trump for the authoritarian leader, body language expert Judi James tells the Daily Mail that he gave Putin 'the ultimate ego-stroke' by publicly treating him like a celebrity guest. Putin appeared visibly pleased with how the lengthy greeting went, and James said he was left 'purring' with delight. Experts warn that Trump already handed Putin a 'victory' by inviting him to U.S. soil for the first time in more than a decade and agreeing to exclude Zelensky. But James notes that the U.S. president's tone swiftly altered when they were in a room for their official talks. He took a more 'heavyweight, power pose' as it was time to get down to business, she notes. 'After the overkill cordiality of his greeting ritual Trump's grim expression and his tapping fingertips here suddenly gave him a tougher and less optimistic look,' James notes. After their nearly three-hour face-to-face meeting, Trump and Putin took turns speaking in a 12-minute joint press conference. They took no questions. The meeting was the first time they sat down in-person since Trump came back into office. It also was the first time that Putin stepped foot on U.S. soil since he was in New York City in 2015 for a United Nations General Assembly gathering where he also met with then-President Barack Obama.
The Independent
6 hours ago
- The Independent
What was said during Trump and Putin's Alaska summit?
Talks between Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, concluded without a firm agreement on ending the three-year war in Ukraine. The nearly three-hour closed-door meeting saw both leaders emerge with notably different public stances on the outcome. Putin expressed optimism, claiming 'agreements' were reached and describing Ukraine as a 'brotherly nation,' while stating Russia wants to end the conflict. Trump, however, contradicted Putin's claims of a deal, firmly stating, 'There's no deal until there's a deal,' despite acknowledging 'many points' of agreement. Trump emphasized that any future deal would require assent from the Ukrainian government and America's NATO allies, and mentioned he would consult with President Zelensky.
