“A proposal would grant total immunity to the President of Peru and members of the Congress of Peru for crimes committed previously.”

The article reports that the Peruvian Congress approved a constitutional reform that **eliminates immunity for parliamentarians and the president**. It states: "The Peruvian Congress approved this Sunday a constitutional reform that eliminates immunity for the parliamentarians and the president" and explains that the reform also affects ministers and other high‑level officials. This reform goes in the direction of **removing** protections rather than granting total immunity for prior crimes.

The Constitutional and Regulations Committee approved a bill (PL 5652 and 8907) that **restores parliamentary immunity**. The text specifies: "from the moment of their election and until one month after having ceased in their functions, parliamentarians may not be criminally prosecuted nor deprived of their liberty without prior authorization of the chamber to which they belong or the Permanent Commission" and that in cases of flagrante delicto the parliamentarian must be brought before their chamber within 24 hours. It adds: "this immunity does **not apply to crimes committed before the election of deputies and senators."

Human Rights Watch describes a series of actions by Peru’s Congress that undermine checks and balances, including the arbitrary removal of members of the National Board of Justice and bills that would weaken accountability for serious crimes. However, the article does not report any proposal that would grant ‘total immunity’ to the president or members of Congress for crimes committed previously; instead, it focuses on political interference with oversight bodies and justice institutions.

The article reports that the Peru Libre caucus presented a constitutional reform project to **re‑establish parliamentary immunity**. It explains that the proposal seeks that no congressperson "can be investigated, prosecuted or detained without prior authorization of the Legislative power itself, even in crimes in flagrante delicto" and that their text for Article 93 states: "congresspersons cannot be investigated, prosecuted or detained without prior authorization of Congress or the Permanent Commission, from when they are elected until **one year after** they have ceased their functions." It notes this would mean that even in flagrante delicto, detention or prosecution would depend on congressional authorization. The proposal applies to congress members only and does not mention the President.

The translated Political Constitution of Peru confirms that the President and members of Congress enjoy specific forms of functional immunity while in office, such as rules on how and when they may be accused or prosecuted. It does not contain any clause granting ‘total immunity’ to the President or legislators for crimes committed before taking office, nor a retroactive blanket immunity for past crimes.

Congress passed reforms 'without debate and in a matter of minutes' that would 'do away with' parliamentary immunity, but with one important exception: 'Any misdeed carried out in the course of congressional duties would remain safe from prosecution.' The article also says Congress 'stripped all immunity from the president, judges on the constitutional court and the defensor del pueblo.'

This academic note explains the 2020 reform proposal to Article 93: "Recently, the Constitution and Regulations Commission approved, by majority, the opinion of 30 June 2020 ... which modifies Article 93 of the Constitution as follows: ... 'Criminal proceedings against congresspersons for common crimes committed during their mandate are of the exclusive competence of the Supreme Court of Justice.'" The author describes it as an "intermediate formula" that **restricts** parliamentary immunity to common crimes committed in the exercise of the congressional function, not to all past crimes, and assigns jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.

In this news segment about the restoration of parliamentary immunity, Congressman Fernando Rospigliosi explains that what was approved in the Constitution Commission applies only from the next legislature (from July 28, 2026) and **does not cover past crimes**: he says that investigations for acts before a term "continue in progress, they are not affected" and that the rule is "clearly expressed" to apply only from 2026. He also states: "if some current congressperson in this period has committed some crime and is reelected ... he will not have any type of immunity because it has not been within the period of the next parliament."

The pre‑report discussing the constitutional reform to Article 93 notes that the project "seeks to once again include common crimes committed during the parliamentary mandate or **before** said mandate in parliamentary immunity" ("pretende volver a incluir los delitos comunes cometidos durante el mandato parlamentario o antes de dicho mandato, en la inmunidad parlamentaria"). It warns that, if approved, "parliamentarians with common criminal acts or omissions **could be benefited** by the institution of parliamentary immunity." This describes a proposal that would extend immunity to prior crimes of congress members, but it does **not** address the President, and it is a draft, not yet enacted.

The CELE site hosts the text of the Political Constitution of Peru and notes that when a treaty affects constitutional provisions, it must be approved following the same procedure that governs reform of the Constitution. The constitutional text displayed regulates the powers and responsibilities of the President and Congress, but it does not contain language providing a retroactive, total immunity for the President or members of Congress for crimes committed before assuming office.

On July 4, 2024, the Peruvian Congress passed Bill No. 6951/2023-CR, a piece of legislation that would establish a statute of limitations on crimes against humanity committed from the period of 1980-2002, effectively ensuring impunity for atrocities that occurred during Alberto Fujimori’s presidency and Peru’s internal armed conflict. The bill states that crimes committed before the entry into force of those treaties are subject to the statutes of limitations established in national law, and any imposed sanctions are null and unenforceable.

This academic article analyzes Law No. 31988, which amends Article 206 of the Peruvian Constitution to reinstate a bicameral congress and modify the procedure for constitutional amendments. The discussion focuses on how constitutional reforms must now be approved and the impact on separation of powers. It does not identify any reform proposal that would grant total, retroactive immunity to the President of Peru and members of Congress for crimes committed in the past.

“Peru's Congress on [6 May] rejected a bill presented by President Pedro Castillo to call a referendum to change the constitution, a campaign promise he had made with the aim of boosting the state's role in the economy. The bill, which would have called for a constitutional assembly to redraft Peru's Constitution of 1993, was rejected by a congressional commission with 11 votes against and six votes in favor.” The reported proposal centers on economic policy and calling a constituent assembly; it does not mention granting total immunity to the president or Congress members for crimes committed previously.

The Peruvian Congress passed Bill 6951, which introduces a statute of limitations for crimes against humanity that were committed prior to July 1, 2002. The piece characterizes the bill as extending legal protection to past abuses by making older crimes non-prosecutable.

In Lima on 17 June 2025, the undersigned organisations strongly condemned approval by the Plenary of the Peruvian Congress of a bill granting amnesty to persons responsible for serious human rights violations committed between 1980 and 2000. The legislation would exonerate members of the Armed Forces, the National Police, and self-defense committees from criminal liability for past abuses.

On 28 August 2001, Congress unanimously approved the lifting of former President Fujimori’s immunity and the commencement of criminal proceedings against him for homicide and forced disappearance. The report also notes that Peru had previously adopted amnesty laws granting immunity from prosecution to those who committed human rights violations.

Freedom House noted that Vizcarra's proposal to end parliamentary immunity for criminal prosecution was a key point of tension between the president and Congress. The report describes the political dispute over removing immunity, but it does not say the proposal granted total immunity for previously committed crimes.

This law effectively grants immunity to those who committed crimes against humanity and war crimes. It does not describe a blanket immunity for the President of Peru and members of Congress for all past crimes; rather, it addresses accountability for specific international crimes committed before the relevant treaty dates.

This news video reports that the Peruvian Congress voted to approve a bill that **removes immunity from former President Pedro Castillo** and authorizes the Supreme Court to prosecute him for the alleged crime of rebellion. The description states: "The Peruvian Congress voted to approve a bill that removes immunity from Pedro Castillo and authorizes the Supreme Court to prosecute him for the alleged crime of rebellion." The report emphasizes that Congress has lifted, not expanded, presidential immunity in this case.

The constitution includes provisions on immunity and legislative protections, but this source is a constitutional text repository rather than evidence that a new proposal would grant total immunity for past crimes. It is useful background on Peru's institutional framework, not direct proof of the claim.

This RPP Noticias video covers a congressional debate on a bill that **proposes to eliminate** certain aspects of parliamentary immunity. The description and on‑air discussion refer to a project to "eliminate" immunity, reflecting public pressure to reduce protections for congresspersons. The debate is framed around decreasing immunity in response to corruption scandals, not granting total immunity for past crimes.

In August 2001 Peru's Congress voted unanimously to remove former President Fujimori's immunity from prosecution, and the next month he was indicted. This is relevant background showing Congress has previously removed, rather than granted, immunity for past crimes.

Peru has had multiple disputes over parliamentary and presidential immunity, but the better-documented reforms focused on limiting or removing immunity for certain officials or on creating barriers to prosecuting crimes against humanity. The specific claim that a proposal granted total immunity to the President and members of Congress for crimes committed previously is broader than the sourced texts, which describe partial immunity changes or statute-of-limitations measures for specific offense categories.