Norma relacionada
Peru
Practice Relating to Rule 100. Fair Trial Guarantees
Peru’s Human Rights Charter of the Security Forces (1991) lists the right of a detainee to a fair trial as one of the ten basic rules. 
Peru, Derechos Humanos: Decálogo de las Fuerzas del Orden, Comando Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, Ministerio de Defensa, Ejército Peruano, 1991, Rule 8.
Peru’s Human Rights Charter of the Armed Forces (1994) states that the right to judicial guarantees is one of the main civil rights which must be respected by armed forces. 
Peru, Derechos Humanos: Principios, Normas y Procedimientos, MFA 09-1, Comando Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, Ministerio de Defensa, Ejército Peruano, Lima, Peru, May 1994, § 27(4).
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Sentences may not be passed or penalties executed in relation to a person found guilty of a criminal offence under international humanitarian law unless a trial has been held.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.n.
The provision continues with the statement that a person charged with a criminal offence has a “right to a fair trial”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.n.(1).
In situations of non-international armed conflict, the manual states that the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in hostilities, or placed hors de combat, are prohibited:
[T]he passing of sentences … without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 71.a.(4).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Sentences may not be passed or penalties executed in relation to a person found guilty of a criminal offence under international humanitarian law unless a trial has been held.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n), p. 251.
The provision continues with the statement that a person charged with a criminal offence has a “right to a fair trial”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n)(1), p. 251.
In situations of non-international armed conflict, the manual states that the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in hostilities, or placed hors de combat, are prohibited: “[T]he passing of sentences … without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 72(a)(4), p. 270.
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states: “The principles of adversarial, immediate, simple and expedient proceedings shall be observed during the entire process.” 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 151.
Peru’s Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces (2010) states:
With respect to the persons mentioned above [i.e. persons not directly participating in hostilities or who have laid down their arms as well as persons placed hors de combat by illness, wounds, detention or any other reason], the following actions are prohibited anytime and anywhere:
e. The passing of sentences … without previous judgment by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees.
f. Threats to carry out any of the aforementioned acts. 
Peru, Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces, 2010, Article 8.1.e–f.
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes under international humanitarian law, states in a chapter entitled “Procedural principles and guarantees”: “Judicial decisions, except for those that merely concern procedure, must express the factual and legal reasons on which they are based.” 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 156.
In a chapter entitled “Proceedings in times of armed conflict”, the Code states:
Article 416. - Proceedings
The procedure to be followed in proceedings during international armed conflicts shall be subject to the rules established for ordinary proceedings to the extent that they apply.
Article 417. - Rules
In these proceedings, the following rules shall be observed:
2. The statements of the accused persons shall be received without any delay, as soon as possible, and separately;
3. The declarations of the witnesses and the identification by witnesses of detainees shall be recorded in the minutes which shall be signed by the witnesses in order to declare that they are authentic, and eventually also by the judge, prosecutor and registrar;
4. If various witnesses who are present concur, only the most important statements shall be registered;
5. The military or police prosecutor may confront witnesses with one another or with the accused if he or she considers this necessary. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 416 and 417(1)–(5).
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
Sentences may not be passed or penalties executed in relation to a person found guilty of a criminal offence under international humanitarian law unless a trial has been held. The judgment must be delivered by an impartial, duly constituted court, which respects generally accepted principles of due process. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.n.
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
Sentences may not be passed or penalties executed in relation to a person found guilty of a criminal offence under international humanitarian law unless a trial has been held.
The judgment must be delivered by an impartial, duly constituted court, which respects generally accepted principles of due process. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n), p. 251.
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states: “Judges shall be impartial in their decisions and during all stages of the proceedings. Their independence from any external interference shall be guaranteed.” 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 152.
The Code further states:
Any member of the military or police who in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict:
8. Imposes a penalty on or executes a penalty against a person protected by international humanitarian law without a conviction that results from an impartial judicial process and without the due process guarantees established by international law shall be imprisoned for a period of no less than six and no more than 12 years. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 90(8).
This article is no longer in force. Along with certain other articles in this legislation, it was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (en banc decision for case file No. 0012-2006-PI-TC, 8 January 2007) because it does not stipulate a crime committed in the line of duty that would fall under the jurisdiction of a military court pursuant to Article 173 of Peru’s Constitution.
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes under international humanitarian law, states in a chapter entitled “Procedural principles and guarantees”:
Nobody may be condemned except without previous judgment which is based on a law … which respects the rights and guarantees established by the Political Constitution of the State, international treaties on the protection of human rights and the rules set out by the present Code. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 143.
The Code also states:
The judges must act impartially in their decisions and at all stages of the proceedings.
The law guarantees the autonomy and independence of the judges against any interference in the exercise of their functions. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 145.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “anyone charged with a criminal offence must be presumed innocent until proven guilty”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.n.(4).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including: “Presumption of innocence while culpability has not been proven.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n)(4), p. 251.
Peru’s New Code of Criminal Procedure (2004) states:
1. Every person accused of committing a punishable offence shall be presumed innocent and treated as such until proven otherwise and he or she is found liable by a court in a final and duly reasoned sentence. …
In case of doubt regarding the criminal liability, the case shall be resolved in favour of the accused.
2. No public officer or authority may refer to a person as guilty of an offence, or provide information in this regard, until a final judgment has been handed down. 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article II.
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:
1. Any member of the military or the police prosecuted for the commission of a punishable offence shall be presumed innocent and must be treated as such until proven otherwise and he or she is found liable by a court in a final and duly reasoned sentence. To this end, sufficient evidence is necessary which has been obtained in an appropriate way and by complying with the procedural safeguards.
In case of doubt regarding criminal responsibility, the case shall be resolved in favour of the accused.
2. No public officer or authority may refer to a member of the military or police as guilty of an offence or provide information in this regard until a final judgment is handed down.
However, indispensable information on such a member of the military or police may be made public when necessary for his or her identification and/or capture. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 153.
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes under international humanitarian law, states in a chapter entitled “Procedural principles and guarantees”:
Article 146.- Principle of presumption of innocence
1. Every member of the military or the police accused of having committed a punishable act is considered innocent, and treated as such, as long as the contrary has not been proven and until his or her responsibility has been established by a solid and properly reasoned decision. To this end, sufficient proof of the charges, which must be obtained and processed in accordance with relevant procedural safeguards, is necessary.
In case of doubt, the criminal responsibility of an accused must be resolved in favour of the accused.
2. Until a decision has been rendered, no public official or authority may treat a member of the military or the police as guilty or may make available information to this effect.
Nevertheless, information that is strictly necessary to identify and/or capture the accused may be released. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 146.
In 2003, in the Marcelino Tineo Silva and Others case, Peru’s Constitutional Court found:
Justifying … pre-trial detention solely with the reproachable nature and negative social consequences of the crime of terrorism would violate the principle of presumption of innocence because, as stated by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, justifying a person’s detention based on the degree of danger or nature of the crime “could be understood as being subjected to punishment in advance before the competent judge has had a chance to decide whether or not the person is guilty. This situation may lead to an arbitrary and twisted application of preventive detention for purposes different from those considered in the law itself.” (Report No. 02/97, para. 51).
Pre-trial detention, which restricts a person’s freedom of movement even though he or she is presumed innocent during the process, may only be imposed if for a certain reason it is considered indispensable. Consequently, its imposition can never be rendered compulsory by law. 
Peru, Constitutional Court, Marcelino Tineo Silva and Others case, Case No. 010-2002-AI/TC, Judgment of 3 January 2003, § 122.
Peru’s New Code of Criminal Procedure (2004) states: “Every person shall have an inviolable and unrestricted right … to be informed immediately and in detail of the accusations against him or her”. 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article IX(1).
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes under international humanitarian law, states in a chapter entitled “Procedural principles and guarantees”: “Every member of the military or the police has the right to be informed of their rights, [and] of the charges made against him or her.” 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 148(1).
In a chapter entitled “The accused”, the Code also states:
The police, the prosecutor and the judges must inform the accused immediately and comprehensively of the following rights in order to ensure that he or she benefits from the safeguards essential for his or her defence:
4. To appear before the prosecutor or military or police judge in order to be informed of and heard on the charges against him or her. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 199(4); see also Article 213.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including:
(1) right to a … defence;
(7) attendance of witnesses for the defence. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.n.(1) and (7).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including:
(1) right to … the means of defence;
(7) attendance of witnesses for the defence. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n)(1) and (7), p. 251.
Peru’s New Code of Criminal Procedure (2004) states:
Every person shall have an inviolable and unrestricted right … to be assisted by a legal counsel of his or her choice or, if necessary, by a court-appointed defence counsel from the moment the person is summoned or detained by an authority.
Every person shall also have the right to have reasonable time to prepare his or her defence; to practice his or her own defence; to participate in the evidentiary proceedings on an equal footing; and to use any pertinent means of proof under the conditions stipulated by the law. The exercise of the right to defence shall cover every aspect of the proceedings, in the form stated by law. 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article IX(1).
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states: “The right to a defence shall be guaranteed at all times, and shall be comprehensive [and] uninterrupted”. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article XI.
The Code also states:
Any accused shall benefit from the judicial guarantees necessary for his or her defence; the police, prosecutor and judges shall have the duty to inform the accused of the following rights immediately and in a way he or she understands:
3. [The right] to be assisted by legal counsel from the first procedural act. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 208(3).
The Code further states: “A person deprived of his or her liberty shall have his or her right of defence guaranteed during the judicial process and during the enforcement of the penalty.” 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 469.
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes under international humanitarian law, states in the Preliminary Title: “In every proceeding, the right to defence must be guaranteed.” 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article XI.
In a chapter entitled “Procedural principles and guarantees”, the Code states:
1. Every member of the military or the police has the right to be informed of their rights, … and to be assisted by a defence lawyer of his own choosing or, if the case be, by a legal aid lawyer from the moment in which he or she is summoned or detained by the authorities.
He or she also has the right to be given reasonable time to prepare his or her defence; to exercise his or her right to material self-defence; to intervene on an equal bases in the gathering and processing of evidence; and to use the pertinent means of proof according to the law. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 148(1).
In a chapter entitled “The accused”, the Code also states:
The police, the prosecutor and the judges must inform the accused immediately and comprehensively of the following rights in order to ensure that he or she benefits from the safeguards essential for his or her defence:
3. To be assisted by a defence lawyer from the very beginning of the proceedings;
5. To make a statement within twenty-four hours of having been detained;
6. To amend his or her statement, with his or her defence lawyer being present, if the statement is relevant and if the amendment is not used as a means of delaying the proceedings. The amendment shall be made every time that the accused voices his intent to do so;
9. To have access to all available information from the moment at which the accused is informed of the existence of proceedings against him or her, in accordance with the provisions of the present Code. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 199(3), (5)–(6) and (9).
In the same chapter, the Code also states:
The accused shall have the right to appoint a defence lawyer of his choosing. If the accused does not do this, he or she shall be assigned a legal aid lawyer. If the accused prefers to defend him- or herself, the judge shall permit this only if the accused is a lawyer and would not jeopardize the efficiency of the legal assistance. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 212.
Under the heading “Penal enforcement”, the Code states: “A person deprived of their liberty shall be guaranteed to enjoy the right of defence during the judicial process and during the enforcement of the punishment.” 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 459.
In 2003, in the Marcelino Tineo Silva and Others case, Peru’s Constitutional Court found:
119. The Constitutional Court has stated that one of the most relevant constitutional procedural rights is the right of defence, recognised under Article 139(14) of the Constitution. “By virtue of this right it is guaranteed that all persons shall not be left defenceless in the legal determination of their rights and obligations, irrespective of the nature of the proceedings (civil, commercial, criminal, labour, etc.).” (Case Tineo Cabrera, Docket No. 1230-2002-AA/TC).
120. … One of the components [of the right of defence] is the right to communicate personally with a lawyer of his or her choice and to be assisted by him or her. As stated in the pertinent provision of the [Peruvian] Constitution, “(…) not to be deprived of the right of defence at any stage in the process (…)” and the “right to communicate personally with a lawyer of one’s own choosing and to be assisted by him or her from the moment the person is summoned or detained by any authority” shall be guaranteed.
121. …[T]he right not to be deprived of a defence must be understood in a criminal law setting to include the police investigation stage from its beginning. The right to be represented by a freely chosen lawyer cannot be reduced in scope by any law or by any norm with the quality of a law, and thus the right to be assisted by a lawyer cannot be interpreted as not covering the moment before giving the first statement to the police. 
Peru, Constitutional Court, Marcelino Tineo Silva and Others case, Judgment, 3 January 2003, §§ 119–121.
Peru’s New Code of Criminal Procedure (2004) states: “Justice shall be rendered impartially by the competent judicial organs and within a reasonable time.” 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article I(1).
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states: “The principles of adversarial, immediate, simple and expedient proceedings shall be observed during the entire process.” 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 151.
The Code also states:
Every person has the right to a final judicial decision within a reasonable time in conformity with the time limits set in this Code.
Delay in issuing decisions or repeated undue delays shall be considered serious misconduct. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 208.
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes under international humanitarian law, states in a chapter entitled “Procedural principles and guarantees”: “Every person has the right to a definitive judicial decision within reasonable time, in accordance with the timeframes established by the present Code.” 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 154; see also Articles 252–254.
In a chapter entitled “Procedures in times of armed conflict”, the Code also states:
Article 416. - Proceedings
The procedure to be followed in proceedings during international armed conflicts shall be subject to the rules established for ordinary proceedings to the extent that they apply.
Article 421. - Time limits
These proceedings shall take place within the following time limits:
1. The preparatory investigation shall take 10 days at the most and cannot be extended;
2. Once the prosecutor’s accusation has been formulated, the defence shall examine the accusation and the presented elements within twenty-four hours;
3. The oral trial shall not be initiated until two days after receiving the prosecutor’s accusation and no later than four days after such receipt;
4. The hearing shall be carried out without interruption and may only be suspended for one day; and
5. The sentence can be designated at the time when the judgment is announced or within one day thereafter. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Articles 416 and 421.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including “examination of witnesses for the prosecution”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.n.(8).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including: “Examination of witnesses for the prosecution.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n)(8), p. 251.
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:
The accused shall have the right to solicit an interpreter to assist in his or her defence if he or she does not correctly understand the official language or cannot express him- or herself in this language. If the accused does not make use of this right, the judge shall appoint an interpreter in accordance with the rules of public defence. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 155.
The Code also states:
1. All procedural acts shall be carried out in Spanish.
2. Should a person not understand this language or cannot communicate easily, the necessary assistance shall be provided to allow the process to be carried out in a regular way.
3. A translator or interpreter, as required, shall be provided to persons who do not speak Spanish, to those who are allowed to communicate in their own language, and to deaf-mute persons and those with any impediment in making themselves understood.
4. Documents and recordings in a language other than Spanish shall be translated when necessary. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 247.
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes under international humanitarian law, states in a chapter entitled “Procedural principles and guarantees”:
The accused has the right to request an interpreter to assist him or her in making a statement if he or she does not correctly understand the official language or cannot express him- or herself in the official language or if he or she has a physical disability and needs to express him- or herself by using sign language. If the accused does not exercise this right, the judge must assign him or her a legal aid interpreter in accordance with the rules established for legal aid defence lawyers. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 149.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including “trial in the presence of the accused”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.n.(5).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including: “Trial in the presence of the accused.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n)(5), p. 251.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including: “no obligation to plead guilty”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.n.(6).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including: “No obligation to plead guilty.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n)(6), p. 251.
Peru’s New Code of Criminal Procedure (2004) states: “No person shall be compelled or induced to confess guilt, or testify against him- or herself”. 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article IX(2).
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:
No one shall be forced to testify against him- or herself. The exercise of this right shall not be construed to mean admission of facts or indication of guilt.
The adoption of any measure aimed at making the accused testify against him- or herself or at weakening his or her will shall be prohibited. Any admission of facts or any confession must be made freely and must be based on express consent. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 154.
The Code also states:
Any accused shall benefit from the judicial guarantees necessary for his or her defence; the police, prosecutor and judges shall have the duty to inform the accused of the following rights immediately and in a way he or she understands:
2. [The right] to remain silent without this implying a presumption of guilt.
7. Not to be subject to techniques or methods that induce or alter the accused’s free will, or any measures against his or her dignity. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 208(2) and (7).
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes under international humanitarian law, states in a chapter entitled “Procedural principles and guarantees”:
Article 147.- Right to non-self-incrimination
No member of the military or the police shall be obliged to make a statement against him- or herself. The exercise of this right may not be taken as admitting to have committed the alleged acts or as indicating responsibility.
It remains prohibited to adopt any measure designed to compel the accused to testify against him- or herself or against their will. Any admission of acts or confession must be made freely and spontaneously and with express consent. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 147.
In a chapter entitled “The accused”, the Code states:
The police, the prosecutor and the judges must inform the accused immediately and comprehensively of the following rights in order to ensure that he or she benefits from the safeguards essential for his or her defence:
2. To remain silent without this implying a presumption of guilt. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 199(2).
Peru’s New Code of Criminal Procedure (2004) states: “Every person has the right to … public ... proceedings, carried out before conviction and in conformity with this Code.” 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article I(2).
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states that “the principles of … public proceedings … shall be respected during trial”. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 151.
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes under international humanitarian law, states in a chapter entitled “Oral and public trial”:
The trial must be public. Nevertheless, in the following cases the Chamber or the Military and Police High Court may decide with reasons to hold the proceedings partially or completely in private if:
1.-The chastity, private life or physical integrity of any of the involved parties is affected;
2.-An official, professional, particular, commercial or industrial secret is endangered whose revelation would cause serious harm, in accordance with the legislation on this matter;
3.-A minor’s statement is heard; and
4.-Because of threats against the national security and defence. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 389.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including “information on rights and time limits for appeals and other petitions”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.n.(10).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including: “[i]nformation on rights and time limits for appeals and other petitions”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n)(10), p. 251–252.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) defines the term “non bis in idem” as: “The principle that no prisoner of war, civilian internee or any other person in the hands of a party to the conflict may be punished more than once for the same act or on the same account.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, Annex 9, Glossary of Terms.
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) defines the term “non bis in idem” in its Glossary of Terms as: “The principle that no prisoner of war, civilian internee or any other person in the hands of a party to the conflict may be punished more than once for the same act or on the same account.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, p. 410.
Peru’s New Code of Criminal Procedure (2004) states:
No person shall be prosecuted or punished more than once for the same act if the subject and grounds are the same. This principle shall apply to both penal and administrative sanctions. … The exception to this norm shall be the revision by the Supreme Court of a conviction and sentence in the cases explicitly allowed by the present Code. 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article III.
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states under the title “Prohibition of Double Jeopardy”: “No member of the military or police shall be prosecuted or penalized more than once if the subject, act and legal basis are the same.” 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article VI(1); see also Article 151.
The Code also states:
The principle of non bis in idem shall be applicable to crimes contained in this Title [of the present Law] and with respect to the competence of the International Criminal Court.
The principle shall not apply if the domestic proceedings
a) are conducted for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court;
b) were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law or were conducted in a manner which, in light of the circumstances of the case, was incompatible with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 88.
Peru’s Law on the Disciplinary Regime of the Armed Forces (2007) states: “Non bis in idem. No person shall be subsequently or simultaneously subjected to a criminal or administrative sanction for the same act if the subject, act and grounds are the same.” 
Peru, Law on the Disciplinary Regime of the Armed Forces, 2007, Article IV.
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes under international humanitarian law, states in the Preliminary Title: “No member of the police or the military shall be criminally prosecuted or punished more than once in the Military and Police Court for the same subject, act and on the same legal basis.” 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article XIII.
The Code also states:
Regarding crimes included in the present Title [namely crimes committed in states of emergency and in violation of international humanitarian law] and regarding [crimes within] the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the principle Non Bis in Idem must be applied.
This principle does not apply if the domestic proceedings:
a. Have the purpose of shielding the accused from criminal responsibility for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
b. Have not been independent or impartial in accordance with the proper procedural guarantees recognized by international law or have in any way, depending on the circumstances of the case, been incompatible with the intention of bringing a person to justice. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 79.
In 2006, in the Lucanmarca case, the Second Provisional Criminal Chamber of Peru’s Supreme Court of Justice stated:
The ne bis in idem principle consists of the prohibition to prosecute someone twice for the same facts. The principle has two components, namely a substantive and a procedural one. The former involves a prohibition to punish a person twice for the same facts. The latter prohibits conducting two criminal proceedings against the same person and for the same facts, even if the legal characterisation of the facts is different. 
Peru, Supreme Court of Justice, Second Provisional Criminal Chamber, Lucanmarca case, Case No. 5835-2006, Judgment of 26 November 2007, p. 46.
In 2007, in the Bustios Saavedra case, the National Criminal Chamber of Peru’s Supreme Court of Justice stated:
The principle of non bis in idem is recognised under Article 139.13 of the Constitution and is based on a prohibition to reopen proceedings after a final judgment was rendered or on the prohibition against double jeopardy which may be consecutive or simultaneous. This constitutional provision also states that the stay of proceedings also has the effect of res judicata. This principle prohibits a state from prosecuting a person twice for the same offence or acts. 
Peru, Supreme Court of Justice, National Criminal Chamber, Bustios Saavedra case, Case No. 034-06, Judgment of 2 October 2007, p. 6.
The Court also stated:
The Constitutional Court has established that no fundamental right is unlimited and that no fundamental right can subordinate other fundamental rights, principles or values also protected by the Constitution. Exceptions to the non bis in idem principle are based on states’ obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish. A person’s right to be protected against successive proceedings initiated by the state must be taken into account together with the requirement that all perpetrators of violations of international human rights law be brought to justice.
More specifically, when the right of an accused not to be subjected to multiple proceedings for the same crime is set against the right of a victim to obtain redress for grave violations of human rights, the state must attempt to diligently fulfil its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish. International law accepts an exception to the non bis in idem principle if justice has been administered illegitimately. In international law, there are three types of proceedings that are considered sufficiently illegitimate so as to allow a second trial: a) trials that were neither impartial nor independent; b) trials aimed at protecting the accused from international criminal responsibility; and c) trials that were not conducted with due diligence. International law allows military or police personnel previously acquitted by a military court for serious violations of human rights to be put on trial before civilian courts. Proceedings for violations of human rights conducted by military courts do not satisfy the standards of impartiality, independence or competence established by international law and consequently the principle of ne bis in idem is not applicable. 
Peru, Supreme Court of Justice, National Criminal Chamber, Bustios Saavedra case, Case No. 034-06, Judgment of 2 October 2007, pp. 6–8.