Related Rule
Peru
Practice Relating to Rule 160. Statutes of Limitation
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “The International Criminal Court has material jurisdiction over four groups of crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. … [T]hese acts are international crimes against human rights and are therefore not subject to statutes of limitation”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 74, pp. 111–112.
Peru’s Legislative Resolution No. 27998 (2003) ratifies
the “Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity”, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 26 November 1968 … with the following declaration:
In conformity with Article 103 of its Political Constitution, the State of Peru accedes to the “Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity” … with respect to crimes covered by the Convention that have been committed after its entry into force for Peru. 
Peru, Legislative Resolution No. 27998, 2003, Article 1.
Peru’s Presidential Decree No. 082-2003-RE (2003) ratifies
the “Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity”, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 26 November 1968 and approved by the Congress of the Republic through Legislative Resolution No. 27998 of 2 June 2003, with the following declaration:
In conformity with Article 103 of its Political Constitution, the State of Peru accedes to the “Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity” … with respect to crimes covered by the Convention that have been committed after its entry into force for Peru. 
Peru, Presidential Decree No. 082-2003-RE, 2003, Article 1.
Peru’s Presidential Decree on the National Human Rights Plan (2005) lists as an objective “the modification of domestic law in order to establish the mechanisms necessary to avoid impunity for the commission of international crimes, such as the non-applicability of statutes of limitations … in accordance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.” 
Peru, Presidential Decree on the National Human Rights Plan, 2005, § 3.1.3 A1.
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010) states: “If the crime is committed during an international armed conflict, criminal action shall expire after thirty five years.” 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 45.
In 2009, 33 members of Peru’s Congress requested Peru’s Constitutional Court to declare unconstitutional Legislative Resolution No. 27998 of 12 June 2003 which approved Peru’s adherence to the UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. The Constitutional Court held:
6. That the object of this treaty is to provide States with mechanisms that permit them to investigate serious violations of human rights and international human rights law that constitute international crimes and with regard to whose prevention and punishment is a ius cogens obligation in international law.
7. That the State of Peru adhered to this treaty through Legislative Resolution No. 27998, published in the official journal El Peruano on 12 June 2003. Bearing in mind Article 11 of the Constitutional Procedure Code, the time frame for entering a petition of unconstitutionality of an international treaty is six months …
[The Court] [d]eclares inadmissible the petition of unconstitutionality against Legislative Resolution No. 27998 which approves Peru’s adhesion to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity because the period of limitation for such a petition has lapsed. 
Peru, Constitutional Court, Statutes of limitation case, 5 November 2009, §§ 6–7.
In 2010, the President of the Bar Association of Callao requested Peru’s Constitutional Court to declare unconstitutional Legislative Resolution No. 27998 of 12 June 2003 which approved Peru’s adherence to the UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. The Constitutional Court held:
4. … That the object of this treaty is to provide States with mechanisms that permit them to investigate serious violations of human rights and international human rights law that constitute international crimes and whose prevention and punishment is a ius cogens obligation in international law.
15. The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity entered into force for Peru on 9 November 2003 … Since the petition of unconstitutionality was made on 5 June 2009, the … six (6) months-period of limitation for requesting that a treaty be declared unconstitutional has lapsed.
[The Court] [d]eclares inadmissible the petition of unconstitutionality by the Dean of the Bar Association of Callao … against the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity because the period of limitation for such a petition has lapsed. 
Peru, Constitutional Court, Statutes of limitation case II, 23 March 2010, §§ 4 and 15.
(emphasis in original)
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Peru stated:
It would … be advisable to find a legal formula which combined respect for the principles of statutory limitation and non-retroactivity with the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity. His delegation thought that a happy balance would be struck if the [draft] Convention [on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity] were made applicable only to future cases. 
Peru, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1517, 16 November 1967, § 3.