President Dina Polant calls for the court’s call to suspend the amnesty law in Peru Human Rights News

President Dina Polarrt has criticized the Human Rights Court between America for its recently passed a draft law that would give pardon to soldiers, police officers and other security personnel participating in the internal conflict of Peru from 1985 to 2000.

On Thursday, Polwart confirmed that the International Court had exceeded its authority by requesting the suspension of the law.

“We are not a colony of anyone,” she said, she said, she said, send Excerpt from her speech to social media.

“We will not allow the court to intervene between the Americans, which intends to suspend a bill seeking justice for the members of our armed forces, the national police and the martial defense committees that fought, and the risk of their lives, against the madness of terrorism.”

Since passing the Peru conference in July, the amnesty law has been awaiting the approval of Polarrt. It can either sign it in the law, allow it to pay automatically or send it to the Congress for reviews.

But the draft law prompted an international protest, not at least because it is seen that it protects the security forces from accountability from the atrocities that were revealed during the Peru war.

The legislation will also provide a “human” pardon for the perpetrators over the age of 70 years who were convicted of wartime crimes.

About 70,000 people were killed in internal conflict, most of them are rural societies and indigenous people.

Soldiers and police officers were apparent to combat armed uprisings from rebel groups such as The Shining Path and the Revolutionary TUPAC Amaru movement. But the conflict has become notorious due to human rights violations and the massacres of civilians without relations with any rebel group.

Francisco Ochoa was 14 years old when his residents were slaughtered in his village, Akumarka, by the soldiers. he Tell the island earlier this week He and other survivors felt “anger and betrayal” under the new amnesty law.

International organizations also condemned the law as a step back for the Peruvian community.

Nine human rights experts at the United Nations signed a statement on July 17, expressing a “warning” of the draft law through Congress. He called on the Peruvian government to veto the bill.

They said: “The proposed legislation would prevent criminal prosecution and condemnation of individuals who committed grave human rights violations during the internal armed conflict of Peru.”

“It would put the state in a clear violation of its obligations under international law.”

A week later, on July 24, the President of the Human Rights Court between America, Nancy Hernandez Lopez, ordered Peru “to suspend the process of the bill” immediately. It ruled that the legislation violated the previous provisions against the laws of amnesty in the country.

She said: “If it is not suspended, the competent authorities refrain from imposing this law.”

She indicated that a session will be held with the survivors, Peruvian officials and members American Committee for Human Rights (Iachr).

In the previous rulings, the court between the Americans found that the amnesty laws and the laws of restrictions are illegal in the event of serious human rights violations such as enforced disappearance and executions outside the judiciary.

He also announced that age is not a factor that is not qualified for suspects accused of serious human rights violations. The court said that such exemptions are acceptable only under international law for less or non -violent crimes.

The National Human Rights Coordinator, an alliance of humanitarian groups in Peru, estimates that the latest amnesty law in the country can turn 156 condemnations and disrupt more than 600 continuous investigations.

The previous amnesty law, which was implemented in 1995, was canceled during the time of President Alberto Fujimori.

However, on Thursday, President Polwart sought to frame her government’s actions as well as in line with international human rights standards.

She wrote on social media: “We are defenders of human rights and citizens,” while asserting that her government was “free”, “sovereignty” and “independent” clear in the internal court decision.