Соответствующая норма
Peru
Practice Relating to Rule 6. Civilians’ Loss of Protection from Attack
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Civilians may not directly participate in hostilities. Civilians may not be attacked unless they directly participate in hostilities.” 
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. 419.
Peru’s Law on Self-Defence Committees (1991) specifies that in internal armed conflicts or in situations of internal violence, certain civilian groups, termed “self-defence committees”, are authorized to “develop activities of self-defence of their communities” and to offer temporary support to the armed forces and national police in “pacification” tasks. They have to be accredited by the competent military commanders and may be armed. Although the law does not specifically address the civilian or combatant status of the members of these committees, it mentions that the participation of draft-aged persons in these committees is equivalent to the accomplishment of the compulsory military service. 
Peru, Law on Self-Defence Committees, 1991, Article 1(7).
In 2006, in the Lucanmarca case, the Second Provisional Criminal Chamber of Peru’s Supreme Court of Justice stated:
In no case during an armed conflict may a civilian population be considered to be a military objective, even if it is composed of ordinary persons, State officials, members of the armed forces not participating in military operations and other protected persons. 
Peru, Supreme Court of Justice, Second Provisional Criminal Chamber, Lucanmarca case, Case No. 560-03, Judgment, 13 October 2006, p. 193.
In no case during an armed conflict may a civilian population be considered to be a military objective, even if it is composed of ordinary persons, State officials, members of the armed forces not participating in military operations and other protected persons. 
Peru, Supreme Court, Abimael Guzmán Reinoso and Others case, Judgment, 13 October 2006, p. 193.