THE PERUVIAN STATE OF CONSTITUTIONAL EMERGENCY IN THE LIGHT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF HUMAN RIGHTS: THREE RELEVANT ASPECTS

This article examines the principles of International Human Rights Law (IHRL) relevant to Peru during constitutional states of emergency, focusing on two key treaties in force: the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR, 1969) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), both ratified by Peru in 1978. Despite IHRL’s relatively recent emergence (post-World War II), its significance is undeniable, particularly as the Peruvian Constitution incorporates international law through provisions. Peru’s Constitutional Court has affirmed the constitutional status of these treaties, emphasizing a shared commitment to human dignity between national and international systems. The study analyzes IHRL regulations on emergencies (Article 137.1 of Peru’s Constitution), addressing practical challenges (systemic rights violations during crises) and theoretical dilemmas (the justification for derogable rights). Its primary objective is to compare the ACHR and ICCPR frameworks with Peru’s constitutional provisions, identifying discrepancies in three key areas: (i) the evolution of derogation vs. limitation clauses; (ii) the authority empowered to declare emergencies; and (iii) the permissible grounds and measures for crisis response. The article ultimately seeks to harmonize Peru’s constitutional emergency regime with its international obligations, addressing gaps and contradictions between the two systems.