This chapter identifies Peru's main challenges in implementing a people-centred justice system. It identifies the major structural, geographical and socio-economic barriers Peruvians encounter while accessing justice services and explores specific groups’ justice experiences (women, Indigenous people, and the LGBTQI community). This chapter also examines existing justice services in Peru to determine if they are accessible, cost-effective and tailored to the specific needs of the most vulnerable groups.
OECD Justice Review of Peru
Towards Effective and Transparent Justice Institutions for Inclusive Growth
6. Towards a people-centred justice system in Peru
Abstract
6.1. Introduction
The OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems defines access to justice as the ability of people, businesses and communities to prevent conflicts and obtain effective, fair, equitable and timely resolution of their legal and justice-related needs, which may include a problem with a legal or justice dimension in any sector and which may demand access to justice services and other dispute resolution mechanisms in order to obtain recognition of and remedy.
Access to justice and the pathways for people to address their legal and related needs are heavily influenced by a country’s constitutional, legal, cultural and governance structures. At the national level (in unitary states), policies are formulated, priorities are identified, and funding is allocated to design and deliver justice services that aim to meet the needs of residents in that jurisdiction. In federal states, this responsibility is often shared between the national and constituent levels of government.
Strong leadership and policy direction are essential for clear sector-wide priorities in justice strategies, whether addressing legal problems or harmonising justice system messages and policies to adopt a common and consistent approach to data collection and planning legal services. Conversely, the absence of leadership and co-ordination, or a clear set of people-centred priorities nationally, can lead to less-than-optimal results for citizens seeking assistance and information to resolve their legal problems.
As seen in Chapter 2, the low levels of trust in public institutions among Peruvians, along with lack of knowledge concerning pathways to justice, absence of economic resources (to afford to participate in the formal legal system) and perceived gaps in integrity and corruption within the system may mean that people choose alternative means of dispute resolution.
In this context, this chapter first presents the concept of a people-centred approach to justice. It looks at the strategic environment and institutional infrastructure that underpin the provision of justice services and identifies the strategic issues affecting the provision of these services and the extent to which they support such an approach. This chapter further identifies the structural implications, barriers and main challenges citizens face when addressing their legal needs, with a focus on specific vulnerable groups (women – including but not limited to – victims of violence; the LGBTQI; and Indigenous people). Finally, it analyses formal and informal justice service delivery from a people-centred approach.
This chapter provides a summary assessment of Peru’s justice system from the perspective of both users and the institutions offering justice services. It sheds light on the pathways individuals take to address their legal issues and the challenges and barriers they face when seeking effective justice. The chapter presents evidence on the planning processes directing and funding justice services that aim to meet people’s needs. It highlights the importance of identifying and locating people’s legal needs through a data ecosystem to match legal services to the right individuals in the right places at the right time along a seamless continuum. This work will be complemented by a forthcoming legal needs survey to be conducted in the two pilot regions of Lima and San Martin in 2024.
6.2. A people-centred justice system in Peru
As seen in Chapter 2, a people-centred justice system is based on an approach where the justice system and its components focus on addressing the needs of the people. Access to justice for all is a fundamental aspect underpinning democracy and a guarantor of the ability of people, communities and businesses to prevent conflicts and obtain effective, fair, equitable and timely resolution of their legal and justice-related needs. This means that the justice system is regarded as a means to respond to and meet people’s needs effectively, whether through formal or informal justice tools and mechanisms. It intentionally focuses primarily on the legal problems and needs experienced by the community, notably by those members who do not – or cannot – gain access to the formal justice system, as stipulated by the recently adopted OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-centred Justice Systems and the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Agenda target 16.3 to ensure equal access to justice for all.
Adopting a people-centred approach in the justice system means prioritising the perspectives and needs of individuals, especially marginalised and vulnerable groups such as women, children, Indigenous groups, the elderly and people with disabilities. This approach guides the design, delivery, implementation and evaluation of public policies, services and legal procedures, both within and outside the justice system.
However, ensuring formal equality before the law and access to courts is not enough for true people-centred justice. The reality often falls short of the ideal of guaranteed access to law and courts in many jurisdictions. A people-centred approach, therefore, begins by identifying the specific legal and justice needs of individuals, considering their unique circumstances. This is crucial since many legal problems do not reach courts, as noted in the OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice (OECD, 2021[1]).
For justice services to meet people's needs effectively, governments and legal service providers must strategically allocate financial and human resources. This requires understanding that justice systems, while needing independence, also compete for public funding like other services. Therefore, these systems must demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness in addressing people's legal and justice needs.
In line with the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems, a people-centred approach to justice requires focusing on service design and delivery that meets people's legal and justice needs. It also involves redefining the missions of justice system institutions to emphasise addressing these needs. Moreover, recognising the perennial challenge of resource scarcity in the justice sector, governments must ensure adequate funding and staffing. This involves balancing the independence of the justice system, particularly courts, with the necessity for public expenditure, as seen in other areas of public service.
6.3. Access to justice and the administration of justice in Peru
The OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems refers to the legal and justice services as the in-person, online or hybrid judicial and non-judicial services that offer: 1) support, such as legal information, advice, resources and representation; and 2) formal or informal mechanisms to resolve their disputes or address their legal needs, including alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms that enable out-of-court settlements and schemes that support prevention and de-escalation (OECD, 2023[2]). Yet this is often narrowly interpreted as primarily having access to courts (see Chapters 3 and 4).
Constitutions of many OECD Member countries defend a broader notion of the individual right to access to justice that goes beyond access to the formal court-based institutions underpinning the administration and delivery of justice by including ADR mechanisms in their constitutions and promoting their use. These mechanisms are defined as not only an alternative to formal institutions but as highly appropriate in servicing people’s justice and legal needs (Nylund, 2014[3]). Countries, including Costa Rica, have constitutions that contain the specific right to arbitration (Gomez, 2023[4]). Other Latin American countries, including Colombia and Mexico, go beyond arbitration and refer explicitly to conciliation and mediation, encouraging governments to introduce such mechanisms (OECD, 2020[5]) (Box 6.1).
Box 6.1. Access to ADR mechanisms in OECD Member country constitutions
The Constitution of Mexico establishes that the “laws shall provide alternative mechanisms to resolve controversies” (art. 17) and recognises arbitration and conciliation in several articles of the Constitution.
Costa Rica establishes in its Constitution that “all persons have the right to terminate their patrimonial differences by means of arbitrators, even when there is a pending litigation” (art. 43).
The Constitution of Colombia recognises that individuals may be temporarily entrusted with administering justice as jurors – members of a jury – in criminal proceedings. This implies that individuals act as mediators or arbitrators authorised by the parties to issue verdicts in law or equity in the terms defined by an Act (art. 116).
Source: Constitutions of Mexico, Costa Rica and Colombia.
The Peruvian Constitution does not explicitly include a right of access to justice. It recognises the rights to due process and jurisdictional protection, focusing narrowly on formal access to jurisdictional mechanisms to resolve disputes. This approach gives substantial power to the judiciary, emphasising traditional courts-based approaches for access to justice. Although the Constitution mentions arbitration as an independent jurisdiction (art. 139), it still falls under the purview of the judicial branch for enforcement or award revision (Arbitration Law, arts. 62-68). ADR or other formal or informal mechanisms for dispute resolution are not otherwise guaranteed as a right in the Constitution.
However, in consideration of Peru’s cultural and demographic specificities (see Chapter 3), the Constitution’s Article 149 mentions the jurisdictional functions of the native and peasant communities with the support of the rondas campesinas, as well as the co-ordination of this special jurisdiction with the Justices of the Peace (see Chapters 3 and 4). In this context, separating access to justice from administration of justice is critical to understanding the delivery of legal and justice services in Peru, including judicial and non-judicial, and how delivery might potentially meet the legal needs of Peruvians in each region of the country.
Peru could benefit from a comprehensive understanding of the people-centred access to justice concept and the recognition of the right of access to justice for all, increasing its capacity to design and deliver justice and legal services to respond to the legal needs of the entire population, notably its vulnerable groups.
6.3.1. The judiciary’s role in ensuring access to justice
In Peru, actions to improve access to justice have predominantly been led by the judiciary, starting with the adoption of the Brasilia Rules (Box 6.2). The judiciary’s commitment to improving access to justice for all people across Peru is clear and commendable. The 2022 Annual Report of the Judiciary’s Commission for Access to Justice for Vulnerable People and Justice in Your Community (Poder Judicial del Perú, 2022[6]) shows a solid commitment to achieving better access to justice for vulnerable people and applying the Brasilia Rules, as noted in Chapters 3 and 4.
Box 6.2. Defining access to justice from the judiciary perspective in Peru: The Brasilia Rules
The 2008 Brasilia Regulations Regarding Access to Justice for Vulnerable People, approved by the XIV Ibero-American Judicial Summit (Brasilia Rules), are an important and commendable attempt to achieve a "people-centred justice approach. They consider that the "judicial system must be designed, and indeed is being designed, as an instrument for the effective defence of the rights of vulnerable people. It is of little use if the state formally recognises a right when its owner is unable to access the justice system effectively to exercise said right.”
The Brasilia Rules are signed and monitored by the judiciary. In Peru, the Permanent Commission on Access to Justice for People in Conditions of Vulnerability and Justice in Your Community (CPAJPCV), monitors compliance with the Brasilia Rules in all judicial districts of the country. The Commission’s Work Plan for 2022 defines “11 areas of work: children and adolescents; adolescents in conflict with the criminal law; older adults; disability; Indigenous peoples; victimisation; deprivation of liberty, migration and displacement; gender; services to users in conditions of poverty and other causes of vulnerability, as well as the effectiveness of the 100 Rules of Brasilia.”
Source: (Poder Judicial del Perú, 2022[6]); Brasilia Regulations Regarding Access to Justice for Vulnerable People, approved by the XIV Ibero-American Judicial Summit, held in Brasilia on 4-6 March 2008; Poder Judicial del Perú (2022), De los años 2016 al 2021 el Poder Judicial benefició alrededor de dos millones y medio de personas a través de la Comisión de Acceso a la Justicia, https://www.pj.gob.pe/wps/wcm/connect/ajpvyjc/s_ajpvcyjc/as_noticia/cs_n_poder_judicial_beneficio_alrededor_de_dos_millones_y_medio_de_personas_a_traves_de_la_comision_de_acceso_a_la_justicia.
However, in parallel, there is scope to strengthen the design and delivery of justice programmes and services outside the judicial branch. In fact, in many OECD Member countries, the executive branch, usually through a ministry of justice or its equivalent, as well as regional executive powers, where applicable, tend to play the leading role in designing, co-ordinating and delivering justice policy making and programming. This helps avoid any issues arising between clients and service providers; in such instances, the judiciary should be able to conduct its independent judicial dispute resolution function free of any perceived conflicts of interest. This started to be developed in Peru by regional governments through their regional development plans as seen in Box 6.4 .
Therefore, as mentioned throughout this report, there is scope to strengthen the executive branch's role in the overall co-ordination, planning and delivery of justice services in Peru in line with the practice in many OECD Member countries. Yet, as seen in Chapter 2, in Peru, access to justice programming is mostly led by the judiciary, which may be a result of significant justice-related reforms that appear to have led to an expansion of the notion of the “administration of justice” to include service design and delivery functions that lie beyond the traditional judicial branch functions supporting judicial decision making.
The judiciary could invest in a range of programmes and initiatives that go beyond the traditional adjudication role, including the organisation of legal justice fairs and campaigns and the recruitment, training and accreditation of legal counsellors (orientadoras judiciales), services that are also provided by the executive (see Chapter 2). This approach can raise a range of challenges, including in the design and delivery of cost-effective justice services to address the day-to-day legal needs of the people. In other words, judiciary-led services tend to primarily focus on services delivered by judicial institutions rather than by other services (such as providing legal information, advice to assist citizens in choosing the best pathway, help with negotiations with debtholders and landlords, etc.) where these are most appropriate.
This may result in a suboptimal use of limited resources, possibly causing duplication, imbalances, and service gaps, as discussed in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. For example, domestic violence and violence against women services are currently provided by the judiciary, the Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations (MIMP), and the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (MINJUSDH) (see Chapter 3). However, there is limited co-ordination, leading to some duplication, overlap and gaps in necessary services in those regions where these services are needed but not provided. Moreover, as discussed in Section 6.4, there appears to be a significant lack of familiarity on the part of those working in the justice sector with numerous services and agencies that tend to operate in the same regions or the same areas of law or seek to address the same issues. For example, due to limited funding, the judiciary’s integrated justice modules on violence against women and family members (as part of the Specialized National Justice System for the Protection and Punishment of Violence against Women and Members of the Family, SNEJ) exist in only 8 of the 35 judicial districts (see Chapter 2); thus, justice system workers in many judicial districts may know little about them. Similarly, mobile justice services are relatively infrequent in some areas, which means they can go unnoticed by residents.
Box 6.3. Regional plans as a potential co-ordination tool for regional justice in Peru
An important aspect of leadership by the executive was revealed during the OECD’s fieldwork in San Martin. The regional government in San Martin provided an interesting example of a state agency seeking to understand, map and co-ordinate all services (including legal services) to meet the needs of the people in their region. The various justice agencies and services (including the Superior Court, the police, the Public Ministry [prosecution], Public Defence, Women’s Emergency Centres [CEM]) currently operate through their institutional chains of command; their interventions in the region do not appear to be formally co-ordinated. One example was provided of three separate justice agencies going to schools separately and not in co-ordination to deliver legal information and education. While a number of these service agencies collect service delivery data and report through their separate institutional chains, the regional government did not have access to data for planning and co-ordination purposes.
The regional government is responsible for its region and inhabitants across a wide range of human services. Like other regional governments, they are interested in the delivery and co-ordination of the full range of these services to gain efficiencies from co-ordinated delivery. As has been widely demonstrated (see the OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice), people in need of legal services will often also need other services, such as health, housing, education and other government services.
In this context, the regional government in San Martin is seeking to design and deliver its next integrated regional development plan (as required under the national planning laws); it aims to co-ordinate all services, including legal services, as optimally as possible within the resources available. Currently, this co-ordination would not cover the judicial decision-making function, yet extending co-ordination coverage to include those services delivered by the judicial branch in the region has the potential to significantly improve the coherence of legal, justice and social services in the region for the greater benefit of its residents, notably its most vulnerable, to optimise the integrated delivery of regional planning and services.
Source: OECD Second Fact-finding Mission to Lima and San Martin, October 2023.
Enhancing the executive branch's role and empowering it to lead the design, delivery and co‑ordination of legal and justice policy and services aligns with the OECD approach to people-centred justice. As mentioned in Chapters 3 and 4, the OECD’s People-centred Justice Framework pays particular attention to governance considerations in implementing a people-centred justice system. It is crucial to ensure a coherent approach to advancing people-centred justice approaches requiring clear institutional leadership, responsibilities, and consistent approaches, notably from the executive branch. It calls for whole-of-government, whole-of-society and whole-of-justice-system approaches; ones that include non-governmental organisations (NGOs) playing a role in the justice sector. Technology, processes, data collection and utilisation, terminology, simplified language, mechanisms for the seamless transfer of information and, importantly, coherent investment initiatives and reforms in accordance with a clear and consistent set of people-centred priorities are all features of a people-centred system providing access to justice. The executive branch’s justice ministries usually tend to provide leadership respecting such common reform efforts and investments. This implies allocating sufficient resources and capacities to develop consistent systems and processes.
Peru could benefit from reflecting on the optimal allocation of responsibilities and resources to empower the MINJUSDH to play a lead role in planning, co-ordinating and delivering fair and equitable people-centred justice policy and services to all in every region of the country. System-wide leadership and co-ordination on the part of the executive, notably justice ministries, in the design and delivery of justice policy and services is common across OECD Member countries.
6.3.2. The need for an executive leadership for co-ordinating the planning of justice services
No country has the resources to invest in justice services to a level that would guarantee capacity to meet all the needs of all people everywhere all the time. Optimising the impact of available resources is thus predicated on co-ordinated planning and delivery of services focused on meeting the greatest needs and in accordance with clear and consistent priorities set by the elected government.
As mentioned throughout this report, effective system-wide leadership in planning justice services could address the current lack of co-ordination in service design and delivery (OECD, 2021[1]). This is the case regarding domestic violence and violence against women in Peru. This high-priority legal need has seen distinct, multifaceted service programmes created and operated separately by the judiciary, MIMP and the MINJUSDH.
Finally, to safeguard judicial independence, it is crucial for the judiciary to remain distinct and independent from the executive branch, as is customary across OECD Member countries. The principle of judicial independence dictates that the judiciary should not oversee the co-ordination or planning of justice services provided by agencies, both within and outside its own branch, including the MINJUSDH and MIMP. This principle also implies that the judiciary should not depend on, nor be beholden to, executive agencies, or NGOs for that matter, for their essential daily operations or for designing and delivering services outside their conventional scope. Consequently, there is an opportunity for Peru to reassess some of the judiciary's initiatives. Notably, this includes examining promoting “a regulatory framework that establishes the mandatory participation of state institutions linked to the execution of itinerant justice, accompanying the advocacy processes of the bill that has been promoted in the Congress of the Republic under the leadership of the Access to Justice Commission” (Poder Judicial del Perú, 2022[6]).
6.4. Barriers to access to formal and informal justice services
In OECD Member countries, people face a wide range of barriers when seeking to gain access to justice services (OECD, 2021[1]). These barriers include:
Financial barriers: The cost of legal services and representation can be a significant obstacle for many individuals. Legal fees, court costs and other expenses can make it difficult for people with limited financial resources to access justice. For example, a low-income family may struggle to afford legal representation in a child custody case, putting them at a disadvantage compared to wealthier individuals.
System complexity: Legal processes can be complex and challenging to navigate without professional assistance. Lengthy court procedures, complicated paperwork and technical language can discourage individuals from pursuing legal remedies. This can be especially problematic for those without legal representation, as they may struggle to understand and comply with the requirements of the legal system.
Lack of language skills and cultural barriers: Language barriers can hinder individuals from understanding and navigating the legal system. Limited access to interpreters or legal documents in different languages can further impede access to justice. Cultural differences can also create challenges, as legal processes may not align with individuals' cultural practices and norms. This can lead to misunderstanding and difficulty in effectively presenting their case.
Remoteness: Geographic distance and limited transportation options can prevent individuals from accessing legal services and courts. This is especially problematic for those living in remote areas or underserved communities. For instance, people in rural areas may have to travel long distances to reach a courthouse or a legal aid office, making it burdensome and expensive to pursue their legal rights.
Discrimination: Prejudices and biases within the legal system can create barriers to access to justice, particularly for marginalised communities. Discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, Indigenous or socio-economic status, or other factors can influence how legal professionals treat individuals and impact the fairness of outcomes. This can result in unequal access to justice and reinforce existing inequalities.
In Peru, barriers to access to justice services relate mainly to infrastructure, ethno-linguistic background, and socio-economic status. These barriers are often accentuated for rural and disadvantaged people. Two of Peru's most evident barriers to access to justice are structural disadvantages and geographical barriers (as seen in the sections below). Indeed, despite recent efforts to improve access to justice in Peru, 76% of Peruvians consider that the state does little, if anything, to guarantee the right of access to justice services (Consejo para la Reforma del Sistema de Justicia, 2021[7]). As seen in Chapter 2, low trust levels in the state, court decisions, justice pathways, and the services people and NGOs are willing or unwilling to seek both reflect and contribute to the prevailing attitudes towards these entities.
6.4.1. Structural, geographical and socio-economic disadvantages
Structural issues affecting access to justice in Peru
As seen in Chapter 2, many Peruvians believe that socio-economic conditions affect their ability to gain access to and use the justice system. Indeed, 23% of surveyed Peruvians reported that they felt part of a group that is subject to discrimination, whether it be the poor (23%), Indigenous peoples (9%), Afro-descendants (7%), sexual minorities (6%) or immigrants (4%) (Latinobarómetro, 2021[8]) (Figure 6.1).
Accordingly, one of the main challenges that the government and the judiciary appear to face in providing services for all at the national level and reducing inequity in access to justice is overcoming barriers to dispensing judicial services equitably to all vulnerable groups, especially the poor in every region of the country, notably in rural and remote regions. During OECD-led interviews, many interviewees mentioned the lack of services in remote areas, especially in regions with Indigenous and native communities. Some of these include discriminatory practices against transgender people and people with disabilities, the non‑recognition by some justice actors of Indigenous justice, lack of services in Indigenous languages, and the lack of regional and national policies and efforts to face these challenges and barriers.
Figure 6.1. Discrimination in Peru appears to be mainly related to socio-economic segregation
Percentage of citizens’ perceptions of the most discriminated groups in Peru, 2020
Note: The figure presents the groups citizens in Peru feel are the most discriminated against. Respondents answered the following question:
From what you know or have heard, who do you believe are the most discriminated against people or groups of people in the country, or do you believe that there are no discriminated groups or people in the country (none)? In the graph, none refers to the respondents who estimated that there are no discriminated groups in the country.
Source: (Latinobarometro, 2021).
Access to justice and geographical barriers in Peru
Though Peru is one of the 20 largest countries in the world by surface area, it has a low population density, with approximately 33 million inhabitants and more than 55 Indigenous communities representing 26% of the population (Chapter 2). Peru is considered one of the countries with the greatest ethnic and linguistic diversity. The 2017 Population and Housing Census identified the existence of 55 Indigenous peoples, 51 of them Amazonian and 4 Andean, in addition to the Afro-Peruvian population. According to the ethnic self-perception of the population aged 12 or older due to their customs and ancestors, 25.7% consider themselves to be of Indigenous origin, mainly Quechua (22.3%), Aymara (2.4%), and Amazonian ethnic groups (1.0%), among the main ones, while 3.6% perceive themselves as Afro-descendants; and 5.9% of white origin. Meanwhile, 60.2% identify as mestizo (mixed heritage) (INEI, 2022[9]).
While physical access to justice in Peru has considerably improved with the creation and assignation of service providers, as described in Section 6.5 (Box 6.4), access remains uneven across the country, mainly due to Peru’s natural geographical characteristics and barriers, along with the slow and regionally uneven establishment of post-colonial state infrastructure mentioned above. Indeed, to date, beyond the courts, ADR mechanisms such as extrajudicial conciliation are mainly concentrated in cities, as more than 50% of the free conciliation centres are located in the free legal assistance centres (Centros de Asistencia Legal Gratuita, ALEGRAs) and mega ALEGRAs (see Chapter 3), which in many regions are in the cities. Likewise, arbitration services only hold virtual hearings, limiting the service to people with Internet connectivity, which in rural areas in 2021 was 17.6% of the population, compared to 57.2% in urban areas (INEI, 2022[10]).
The geographical reach of these services could be improved in many rural areas of Peru, such as the Andean and other Indigenous regions. This would increase access to justice services for residents of these areas, who tend to be Indigenous people and ethnicities with distinct cultural and language differences.
In the case of Public Defence services, even though its 390 offices and 2 057 public defenders (see Chapter 3) cover a broader geographical area, these are insufficient considering the number of cases that the Public Defence receives (Defensoría del Pueblo, 2020). The Public Defence has made some efforts to reach rural areas. The Public Defence District Directorates provide mobile legal defence and conciliation services in co‑ordination with the Action Platforms for Social Inclusion National Program (Programa Nacional Plataformas de Acción para la Inclusión Social, PAIS), which provides services in rural areas through mobile and fixed mechanisms. In the first quarter of 2021, it provided 6 886 mobile services (MINJUSDH, 2021[11]). However, interviews with people in San Martin during a fact-finding mission to the region in October 2023 revealed that there is little awareness of the service in rural and urban areas.
Furthermore, the lack of trust in various state institutions discussed in Chapter 2 is also exacerbated by the fact that the state's power is not fully exercised in all areas of the country. Police stations are probably the most widely distributed state institutions, but even these could be more present across the country, particularly in rural and remote areas. Other state institutions, such as courts, are even less widely distributed, and having greater presence could considerably improve people’s access to justice in those regions.
Hence, barriers to access to justice remain a significant challenge in delivering access to justice in rural and remote areas, making it considerably difficult for residents to obtain access to quality justice services. Most importantly, justice entities face a dearth of mechanisms to approach this population and clearly identify and respond to their needs. The state, therefore, faces systemic challenges in providing judicial protection to potentially millions of Peruvians who are left behind and outside the state spectrum.
In response, rural populations have developed local justice solutions tailored to their needs and cultural specificities. This is the case of the peasant patrols and other community justice mechanisms that cohabitate with formal justice today. All these mechanisms are closer to the rural and Indigenous population than are the formal institutions engaged in the administration of justice, and these do not represent higher costs for the poorest citizens (Ardito-Vega, 2012[12]). However, the Peruvian state has yet to design an administrative framework for the implementation of these mechanisms and especially for their co-ordination with formal justice services and institutions, as highlighted in Chapter 2.
Access to justice and legal literacy in Peru
When people are unaware of their legal rights, they tend to find it challenging to define their specific legal needs. This is an initial barrier that limits their capacity to identify the circumstances under which they can reach out to a third party or service to solve their problems. The most significant barrier to meeting people's legal needs often occurs in the initial phase. A lack of legal literacy means that people who require legal assistance struggle to define their needs and identify the services required. This particularly affects marginalised and vulnerable populations and those who feel unequal under the law (La Rota, M.E. et al., 2014[13]).
Therefore, specific efforts should be dedicated to reaching out to the most relevant, vulnerable, under-represented and marginalised groups in society while avoiding undue influence and policy capture. Particular attention should be paid to culturally appropriate justice services that could significantly empower Indigenous communities and advance access to justice. This approach in service design involves understanding and respecting culturally diverse groups to accommodate cultural differences in justice-related values, attitudes and traditions (OECD, 2020[5]).
Consequently, people’s awareness of their legal rights, institutions and pathways to resolve legal problems and enforce their rights is essential to an effective justice system. People’s awareness indicates they can readily navigate the justice system to address legal issues. Apart from providing a range of appropriate services, a people-centred justice system will have mechanisms to help people be aware of how to address their problems and whom they can turn to for assistance and resolution or to be readily made aware when problems are confronted. In addition to general education and knowledge conveyed through education systems, community information and education campaigns, a people-centred justice system features systems of triage, including problem identification and referral, to help people make use of the available and most appropriate services (OECD, 2021[1]).
6.4.2. Justice experiences and priority areas for the legal needs of specific groups
Part of the task of identifying legal needs is to locate these needs geographically and demographically through a mapping exercise. Adequately mapping a particular community's legal and justice needs requires considering that groups of people with particular characteristics – such as age, ethnicity, gender, and place of residence, among others – experience specific legal and justice needs and barriers (OECD, 2021[1]). Some groups with specific needs, without being exhaustive, include people with disabilities; children and the elderly; people experiencing economic disadvantage; the LGBTQI community; Indigenous groups; victims of domestic violence; and detainees and prisoners. This review considers four vulnerable groups in Peru: women; women victims of violence; Indigenous (native and rural) communities; and the LGBTQI community (Chapter 2). The next section expands on their specific legal needs.
Women’s justice experiences
Access to justice is increasingly recognised as a critical dimension of tackling gender inequality. Lack of access to justice can adversely affect the social, emotional and financial situation of women and their families. In addition, women are more prone to experiencing multiple and compound obstacles in accessing justice, which often include the following (OECD, 2020[5]):
cost-related barriers, which include direct cost of services, fines, transportation, childcare;
structure-related barriers, which include legalese, a lack of understanding of the justice system;
social barriers, which include judicial stereotypes, bias and discrimination;
specific barriers faced by at-risk groups, which include people with disabilities, girls, migrants, ethnic minorities and linguistic minorities.
The main barrier Peruvian women face when trying to access justice services is the lack of knowledge of their rights and services available. This barrier appears to be rendered even more daunting for Indigenous and rural women. In fact, according to a 2017 study where the Ombuds Office interviewed 117 women, victims of violence, and users of the judicial system (users of the justice system from the regions of Arequipa, Ayacucho, La Libertad, Lambayeque, Moquegua, Puno, and San Martin; most aged 19 to 51 years [88.1%]), 75% of them reported not knowing the law (Defensoría del Pueblo, 2017[14]).
Furthermore, geographical barriers are more accentuated for women in Peru, both because they often do not have their own resources and because of their domestic responsibilities (Ardito-Vega, 2012[12]).
Additionally, women tend to face procedural challenges when attempting to access justice services. These challenges tend to relate to limited training or sensibility of justice operators, along with limited clarity on the exact nature and scope of their responsibilities in delivering services to these client groups. Moreover, once women file their claims, they are often limited in their capacity to attend hearings or follow up on their cases due to time constraints (most of them are head of household single mothers who have to combine work with domestic care responsibilities).
Information regarding the exact nature of women’s legal needs in Peru and what they must do to meet them remains cursory. That said, in a 2018 Ombuds Office study on Alimony and Child support Proceedings, more than 95% of the petitioners were women, and in only 22.4% of cases did the parties agree to pursue a conciliation process (Defensoría del Pueblo, 2018[15]). A 2021 study on the ALEGRAs reported that 66% of its users consulted on alimony and child support cases, followed by 11% consulting on family violence. This same trend illustrates the uptake of conciliation services in ALEGRAs; from 2019 to 2021, 72% of its users reached out to this service to solve problems related to alimony and child support, followed by 5% of users looking for conciliation services to solve problems related to family violence. Violence against women is one of the three main problems with a legal dimension faced by women in Peru.
The users of integrated service providers, such as the ALEGRAs (Chapter 2 and Section 6.4 below), tend to be women. Indeed, from 2019 to 2021, 91% of users who received legal assistance at ALEGRAs were women (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2021[16]). That said, awareness of the existence and functions of the ALEGRAs appears to be limited, as reported by local stakeholders to the OECD mission.
Women victims of violence
People experiencing family violence may not know what legally constitutes family violence or what legal protections are available to them. Social attitudes that shift blame to the abused victim and the threat of violent retribution create further barriers that inhibit people from seeking help. Once they decide to act, victims of domestic violence have immediate legal and justice needs arising from their necessity to seek physical protection from the police and act as witnesses and victims in an eventual criminal trial against their aggressor. Leaving a violent relationship also engenders legal and justice needs involving separation or divorce, as well as matters involving child custody. It may also entail severe economic and housing issues, leading to poverty and homelessness if the victim is forced to leave the family home where the abuser is the main income earner, and to physical and mental health-related needs following violent attacks.
Victims of family violence also often need to interact with areas of justice services other than criminal justice, including applications for crime victim assistance and child protection. Additionally, engaging with the justice system can heighten trauma for victims, such as when a perpetrator pursues or prolongs justice processes as a means of maintaining control over their former partner (OECD, 2021[1]). Consequently, policy responses to tackle violence against women should consider the unique and intersecting legal needs faced by survivors, which are often intertwined with complex emotions about their abuse and abusers. Survivors often face significant difficulty simultaneously addressing all the problems arising from the violence they have faced (OECD, 2020[5]).
According to the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics’ (INEI’s) Demographic and Family Health Survey (ENDES) 2020, 54.8% of women were victims of violence perpetrated by their husbands or partners. This percentage was higher for victims in urban areas (55.3%) than those in rural areas (52.3%). Among the forms of violence, psychological and verbal violence stands out (50.1%), followed by physical violence (27.1%) and sexual violence (6.0%). Likewise, it should be noted that both psychological, verbal and physical violence were declared in greater proportion in urban areas than in rural areas (50.6% and 27.5%, respectively) (INEI, 2020[17]).
Stakeholder interviews highlighted that women victims of violence in Peru are often reluctant to denounce the perpetrator for several reasons: they do not know their rights; they do not trust public institutions; they fear reprisals; or they must deal with cost-related barriers. In fact, according to INEI, most of them ask their families for advice instead of reaching out to social or justice services; only 26.2% of women victims of violence reach out to justice services, while 42.9% reach out to a family member or friend for advice (INEI, 2020[17]). Only 29% of women victims of violence launch a formal complaint (INEI, 2018[18]).
The outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in Peru led to significant increases in the levels of gender-based violence and crimes against women and girls, such as rape and sexual assault. For instance, since the introduction of mobility restrictions in mid-March 2020, female disappearances rose dramatically in Peru. In 2021, more than 5 900 women were reported missing, three-quarters of whom were girls and teenagers. The number of cases doubled in the jungle and Amazonian regions. In 2020, the number of calls to MIMP’s Hotline 100 (Línea 100) registered an increase of 97%. As a result, the overall number of calls related to domestic violence against women, family members and sexual violence was close to 236 000 (Plataforma digital única del Estado Peruano, 2020[19]).
It is likely, however, that these figures underestimate the magnitude of the issue. While data from sources such as police reports, helplines, health centres and shelters provide essential insights, they are unlikely to reflect the true situation since many victims were confined with the perpetrator. In addition, victims of violence often do not report episodes for fear of shame, stigma, or retaliation and because they have emotional linkages with the person imparting mental and or physical violence. This under-reporting may have been even greater during the COVID-19 pandemic due to mobility restrictions and because the risk of contagion may have hindered victims’ capacities to seek help in person. Telephone or Internet reporting may also be limited in this context, given that victims have fewer opportunities to reach out secretly when confined at home with their abusers (OECD, 2022[20]).
Women survivors of gender violence constitute a particularly vulnerable at-risk group when interacting with the justice system. They face specific barriers that may include stigma, harassment and re-victimisation throughout the process. They also have multifaceted needs beyond the legal sphere that are often not addressed due to fragmented justice systems (OECD, 2020[5]). The Ombuds Office has reported cases of judicial harassment (e.g. the case of Natalia Manso) where women have been re-victimised by the indiscriminate use of redundant and uncoordinated judicial procedures (Defensoría del Pueblo, 2021[21]). Law 30364 of 2015 (Law to Prevent, Sanction and Eradicate Violence against Women and Family Members) is a crucial step towards improving women’s (victims of violence) access to services, which could potentially solve their needs. In this connection, Peruvian authorities have worked together across administrative silos in strengthening services for women victims or potential victims of violence as well as justice pathways for this population. Yet, the institutions part of these pathways still face challenges that directly affect women’s interaction with and access to services.’
It appears that judicial decision makers' attention to women in relation to domestic violence and dealing with women more broadly seems limited. Interviews revealed scope to strengthen the justice system's capacity to adopt a proper gendered perspective of the victim's situation that considers their point of view. In addition, anecdotal evidence from the OECD missions suggests that many judges are insufficiently trained to deal with matters relating to domestic violence and violence against women and may not consider the history of violence in relationships.
Moreover, interviews revealed concerns about limited gender-sensitive/gender-specific training of police officers who often do not demonstrate the proper capacity to manage cases of violence against women. Hence, according to a 2017 study where the Ombuds Office interviewed 117 women victims of domestic violence and users of the judicial system, 62% reported not trusting the behaviour of the national police (Defensoría del Pueblo, 2017[14]).
In the last few years, Peru has made considerable efforts to create a more robust legal framework (Law 30364 of 2015), programmes and institutional arrangements to improve capacity to meet the needs of women victims of violence in the country. This is the case of MIMP’s AURORA Program. Within this programme, there are specialised services for women and other family member victims of violence, such as the CEM, the Hotline 100, the Chat 100, the Urgent Attention Service (Servicio de atención urgente, SAU) and the Rural Strategy (Chapter 3). The SNEJ was created in 2018 as the institutional co-ordination mechanism on violence against women (Chapter 3). The MINJUSDH has also created a hotline and offers legal defence for women victims of violence.
The implementation of intersectionality in cases of violence against women includes the creation of the Guidelines for the Incorporation of an Intercultural Approach in the Prevention, Attention, and Protection in Cases of Sexual Violence against Indigenous and Native Children, Adolescents, and Women (approved through Supreme Decree 009-2019-MC), which promote access to justice services that respect cultural and linguistic diversity. Furthermore, the Protocol for Care of the Women’s Emergency Centres includes dispositions for differentiated treatment for vulnerable populations, including Indigenous communities and the Afro-Peruvian population; as well as the Protocol of Joint Action between the CEM and police stations, which follows an intercultural approach. However, the CEM and other justice services should improve the implementation of intersectionality in cases of pregnancy of minors resulting from sexual violence, violence against Indigenous and native women, and women with disabilities.
Some Peruvian institutions have taken initial steps to improve the services provided in police stations. For instance, Peru’s national police has created specialised police stations for crimes against women; public officials working in police stations are being trained in gender issues (mainly by the Escuela Nacional de Formación Profesional Policial, according to responses to the OECD questionnaire). CEM (Chapter 3) have been established in 7% of police stations (184 out of 1 318) nationwide to support victims when denouncing a case of violence with legal guidance and advice, judicial defence, psychological counselling and social assistance.
However, as the gateway to access justice pathways for women victims of violence, services provided by police commissariats could still be improved, mainly by implementing actions to enhance people’s trust. There is also scope to strengthen temporary and public shelters for women victims of violence and their children. Both the judiciary and CEM oversee identifying the risk level when a woman victim of violence presents a claim. Once the risk is identified, they decide whether to send victims or potential victims and their children to shelters. However, it appears there are insufficient public shelters, and given that maintenance support for these shelters depends on subnational governments, not every municipality considers these shelters a priority.
Mirroring trends in OECD Member countries and other countries in the world, women victims of violence in Peru experience a high number of legal problems and some of these are not directly related to the violence. Therefore, there is still no exact information on the exact nature of women victims of violence legal needs. The AURORA Program has determined their principal needs, however. These include:
Protection: Appropriate protection measures in the context that the victim is in, including safe houses and referral to support networks.
Justice against abusers: A need for access to justice to ensure justice in relation to their abusers and for appropriate sanctions to be applied.
Simplified processes: Receiving justice through the formal justice system can have excessive formalities and documentation, which can take too long for most victims. There is a need for these processes to be “short-circuited”.
Information: Victims need information about legal services to help them navigate these effectively.
Recovery support: Victims need psychological, medical, and other support, both immediately and ongoing, to help them through the process and to recover.
Assistance: The justice process is complex, and informants suggested that it is too difficult to navigate without assistance, especially if dealing with unsympathetic attitudes of police and other officials.
Indigenous people’s justice experiences
Stakeholder interviews revealed that Indigenous peoples tend to experience multiple forms of disadvantage. The high rates of interaction with criminal justice experienced by Indigenous people are often reported to be linked to such factors as lifetime cycles of poverty and intergenerational trauma that accumulate over time. Indigenous people thus face specific needs given their socio-economic situation. They may also face further barriers, including financial costs, lack of familiarity with court language and living in remote regions. Reliance on community and informal justice dispute resolution mechanisms as opposed to official justice institutions can also be a factor preventing Indigenous communities from seeking certain types of assistance, protection or benefits they would otherwise be entitled to (OECD, 2021[1]).
There are 55 Indigenous groups in Peru (MINJUSDH, 2018[22]). Rural and native communities are Indigenous communities that, according to where they are in the national territory, are called one way or the other. There are, however, Indigenous communities that do not correspond to either of these groups (rural or native). The Peruvian Constitution establishes that rural and native communities have legal existence and are corporate entities (Chapter 2). These different terminologies used to identify themselves (different from “Indigenous”) might be because most of the Indigenous populations in Peru tend not to identify themselves as such (Ardito-Vega, 2012[12]).
According to the First Census of Peasant Communities, the Department of Puno concentrates the largest number of Indigenous communities, followed by Cusco and Ayacucho. According to the last census implemented by the INEI in Peru, 20.7% of the surveyed population lives in rural areas of the country. Also, the First Census of Rural Communities (comunidades campesinas) reveals that the departments with the largest number of peasant communities are Madre de Dios, San Martin and Ica. According to the 2017 INEI Census on Population Housing, among the 40 original languages most spoken by the native communities in Peru are the Asháninka (19.23%), Awajún (15.5%), Kukama Kukamiria (7.99%) and Quechua (7.77%). According to this census, the most common language within rural communities (comunidades campesinas) is Spanish, followed by Quechua and Aymara (INEI, 2018[23]).
Interviews revealed that the most common barriers reported by Indigenous people when trying to access a justice service tend to relate to distance and lack of connectivity. They also face barriers related to system complexity, corruption and ethno-linguistic barriers. Further, Indigenous populations have also encountered barriers when accessing justice services to defend their fundamental rights. To address some of the system's complexity and linguistic barriers, Peruvian authorities have been implementing actions and making institutional arrangements to enhance and promote an intercultural approach, such as increasing the number of interpreters.
Despite these efforts, stakeholders reported that, notwithstanding laws that aim to protect Indigenous rights, in many remote areas, there is a dearth of public prosecutors and public defenders, and when they are present, Public Defenders and sometimes even the police tend to be unable to communicate using local Indigenous languages. The result is that illegal activity goes unprosecuted, and Indigenous rights go undefended in many circumstances. Further, when agencies (police) are potentially available, a lack of specialisation in environmental topics or laws regulating Indigenous land can exacerbate access-to-justice barriers for Indigenous people.
Limited environmental prosecutor’s offices and courts and the lack of public defenders that see environmental cases limit access to justice for Indigenous communities.
Evidence also suggests that many Indigenous populations do not trust ordinary justice or justice institutions. In fact, according to the results of a study implemented in the Department of Cuzco, 89% of the surveyed population (rural population) declared not trusting ordinary justice (“the justice from the city”). Indeed, most people surveyed recognised that community justice is more suitable for resolving the conflicts of the rural population. One indicator of this is the answer to the question, “Which justice system best serves the women within the community?” About 90% of the surveyed population stated it is community justice (Brandt, 2017[24]). However, there is still no exact information on what Indigenous people (including native and rural communities) do to solve their legal needs.
Despite this, several cases have been reported in which Indigenous representatives, including native and rural communities, have reached out to community justice (peasant patrols or rondas campesinas or other Indigenous community leaders) and Justices of the Peace to solve their problems (civil, family and criminal matters that affect individuals and families) (see Chapter 3). In this connection, for Indigenous people in remote areas, access to Justices of the Peace and peasant patrols is often more proximate, timely and trusted. Periodically, some Indigenous representatives reach out to ordinary justice in cases where they consider their fundamental rights violated or at risk of being violated. Also, there are cases of Indigenous people reaching out to ordinary justice when they disagree with the decision of Indigenous justice.
The most common cases presented by Indigenous populations in Puno (where the judiciary recently piloted the ethnic variable of the Integrated Judicial System [SIJ]) and in San Martin (where the OECD conducted a fact-finding mission in October 2023) are related to alimony, child support and violence against women. Furthermore, for Indigenous people in remote areas, it was reported that a major negative outcome from the state’s absence is a lack of protection against the activities of illegal miners, loggers, drug traffickers and invaders of Indigenous lands. Lack of adequate policing and public prosecution to counteract illegal activity and public defence services to represent Indigenous communities were reported to have undermined the confidence of Indigenous groups in the state or the court’s capacity to effectively enforce their rights.
Consequently, in terms of the needs in relation to available services, there are two issues of relevance:
the civil, family and criminal matters that affect individuals and families, and which for people in certain regions generally fall within the jurisdiction of the Indigenous justice system (including Justices of the Peace, rondas campesinas and the authorities of other native communities).
the community and individual legal issues resulting from the erosion of their rights and the loss of land and resources due to the actions of illegal miners, loggers and invaders, which require action on the part of ordinary justice (and the government).
The LGBTQI community’s justice experiences
The Peruvian state started collecting statistical information on the LGBTQI population in 2017 with its First Virtual Survey for LGBTQI People. The survey established that 62.7% of the surveyed population (belonging to the LGBTQI community) reported having been victims of violence or discrimination, while 17.7% reported being victims of sexual violence. The survey also reported that in cases of discrimination, 33% of the aggressors were public officials, and 22% were administrative staff of a public service provider in Peru (INEI, 2017[25]). The survey revealed that only 4.4% of the total number of people attacked or discriminated against reported the incident to the authorities, and of these, 27.5% said they had been treated poorly at the service where they reported the incident, and 24.4% reported having been treated very poorly (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2020[26]). Moreover, according to the II National Human Rights Survey, 51% of the surveyed population reported that the LGBTQI community faces discrimination and lack of guarantees to be treated in a dignified manner. Likewise, 71% of the surveyed population perceive that the LGBTQI community are the most discriminated group in Peru (MINJUSDH, 2020[27]).
Peru has also started to take steps towards incorporating differentiated approaches on behalf of the LGBTQI community. According to the judiciary, judges are being trained as agents of change in the guarantee, for example, of the rights of the LGBTQI population. Also, the Protocols adopted in the Framework of Violence against Family Members have included the LGBTQI population, MIMP reported to the OECD mission. The national police has also recently adopted guidelines on human rights, including LGBTQI rights. Furthermore, according to the responses to the questionnaire conducted for this review, the Public Ministry has recently implemented a Criminological Study of Intentional Deaths of LGBTQI People in Peru 2012‑2021, which assessed those cases in which victims were members of the LGBTQI community to identify the most salient circumstances or facts surrounding the violent deaths of this population group. This study aimed to generate valid and reliable information about this type of crime, which is mostly motivated by discrimination.
However, precise information about the exact nature of the LGBTQI community’s legal needs in Peru is still lacking. One of the possible areas could be related to potentially discriminatory treatment, including from public officials (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2020[26]). Stakeholder interviews highlighted that other areas for legal needs of this population could relate to changing one’s sex, changing one’s name and the need for physical or medical analysis. Domestic violence services were sometimes also criticised, including by members of the transgender community, for being too narrow (not inclusive) in their approaches (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2023[28]).
In recognition of these challenges, the 2018-2021 National Plan of Human Rights included the objective of keeping a record of cases of discrimination against the LGBTQI community (MINJUSDH, 2018[22]). According to the 2020 (third) Follow-up Report on the National Plan of Human Rights, prepared by the MINJUSDH, this goal is yet to be reached, however.
Overall, stakeholder interviews revealed that to gain access to justice services, Peruvians face several contextual barriers, including low levels of trust in state institutions; limited knowledge and awareness concerning services and pathways to justice; limited economic resources that would enable effective participation in the formal legal system; and widespread (perceived) corruption within the system. In this context and in view of geographical and system complexity, many vulnerable populations in Peru are opting for non-formal justice services and community justice mechanisms to solve their problems. For people in remote areas, access to Justices of the Peace and Indigenous area options such as rondas campesinas are often more proximal, timely and trusted. However, when these avenues do not address the problems concerned or are not available, the result may be not using any service at all to solve problems. This choice invariably leads to a worse outcome. For women, women victims of domestic violence and the LGBTQI community, barriers are also evident, including instances of institutional discrimination and lack of trust. As in many countries, violence survivors in Peru reported facing substantial obstacles to reporting incidents and seeking protection.
As such, Peruvian justice institutions are currently facing the challenge of guaranteeing access to justice for all people, especially those who are in vulnerable conditions, in a way that overcomes all forms of discrimination. In this sense, Peruvian justice service providers should work to provide Peruvians with safeguards to ensure that they feel equal under the law and that the system can effectively meet their legal needs.
6.5. Justice service delivery: An analysis using a people-centred approach
According to the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems and OECD criteria for people-centred design and delivery of legal and justice services, accessible services are those with a human-centred approach, designed, delivered, implemented and evaluated considering the perspective and needs of specific communities and groups in vulnerable situations to actively overcome the range of barriers to the assistance people require. Targeted and inclusive services have to do with the specific access needs of groups of a population. Depending on the national country context, particular strategies may need to be developed, for example, for youth and children, women, elderly people, Indigenous groups, migrants and refugees, people with disabilities and other minorities to address the legal and justice needs they may be experiencing during specific stages of lifecycles. In fact, a people-centred justice system would have services appropriate to the distinct levels of capability of the people experiencing legal problems. The challenge for governments is to provide not just a wide range of service options but also options that are particularly appropriate to the needs of each group (OECD, 2021[1]).
Peru has made efforts to improve its justice system and increase access to justice for its population. The country has taken steps to enhance the number and types of justice services available to its citizens. This includes expanding the presence of courts, diversifying judicial services, expanding ADR mechanisms and adopting community justice mechanisms. Specialised courts and programmes, such as the Justice of the Peace and judicial mechanisms to improve the intercultural approach, have also been established to address the unique needs of vulnerable populations (see Box 6.7). In Peru, public defence and legal aid services are also available to assist individuals who cannot afford legal representation.
However, the accessibility of these services and their ability to respond to the particular needs of vulnerable populations can vary in practice. As discussed in Section 6.3, structural barriers, such as lack of trust and awareness, affect access to justice services in Peru. There are other specific limitations that vulnerable populations face when accessing each available service as well; there may be regional disparities in the availability of justice services, with more remote areas facing challenges in accessing adequate legal representation and support. Additionally, socio-economic factors, language barriers and cultural differences can also pose obstacles for vulnerable populations in accessing justice services.
This section assesses available justice services in Peru to identify if they are accessible and if they actively overcome the range of barriers to the assistance people require, particularly those targeting vulnerable populations (women, including women victims of violence; Indigenous populations; and the LGBTQI community).
6.5.1. Formal justice services provided by the judiciary, the Public Ministry, the national police and the constitutional jurisdiction
Access
The judiciary considers the number of inhabitants in each judicial district to assign judges in each district (including ordinary judges, who oversee ruling in first-instance constitutional cases). Hence, the judicial district of Lima has the highest number of judges, while the judicial district of Lima Este has the lowest number (Figure 6.2). Peru appears to have only half the number of judges per capita compared to European OECD member countries. Indeed, there are around 10 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in Peru, compared with 18 in European OECD member countries. However, Peru appears to have a higher number of judges than other OECD members in the region, including Colombia, Chile and Mexico, with 11.5, 7.5 and 4.5 judges per 100 000 inhabitants respectively (CEJ, 2023[29]) (INE, 2019[30]) (IEP, 2023[31]).
Additionally, there appears to be at least one judge and one prosecutor in all provinces of Peru. In the framework of a recent decentralisation process, both the judiciary and the Public Ministry have assigned additional judges and prosecutors (fiscales) for judicial districts with higher populations.
Furthermore, other initiatives from the judiciary, such as integrated models and mobile strategies, aim to reach out to rural and remote populations with in-court services (Box 6.4).
Figure 6.2. Number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants in each judicial district in Peru
Note: The numbers on the figure correspond to the number of judges in each judicial district per 100 000 inhabitants. The calculation was made calculating the number of judges in each judicial district by 100 000 divided by the number of inhabitants in the corresponding judicial district. According to this, at the national level, with 33 726 000 inhabitants in Peru (2023), there are 10 judges per 100 000 inhabitants.
Source: Poder Judicial del Perú, 2022.
Box 6.4. Strategies implemented by the judiciary to improve access to justice in Peru
Mobile services
The Itinerant Justice Service is an initiative created by the judiciary through which judges (including Justice of the Peace judges) and other justice operators regularly travel to remote areas of the country, in all judicial districts – including Indigenous communities, where there are limited communication and Internet resources and where there is a high number of vulnerable populations. This service aims to guarantee the effective exercise of people’s fundamental rights and provide judicial services in clear and simple language, considering the predominant language of the area. Claims are collected and reviewed beforehand to allow decisions to be made in situ.
The judiciary delivers mobile justice services through the Superior Courts in all 35 judicial districts. In this sense, in 2017, the judiciary approved the Protocol of Itinerant Justice for People in Vulnerable Conditions with the purpose of regulating this service (Poder Judicial del Perú, 2022). According to the judicial branch, the most common cases presented before judges in the framework of the Itinerant Justice Service are related to alimony; violence against women and other family members; designation of supports and safeguards for people with disabilities; and notary proceedings. The judiciary reports that from 2018 to 2021, this initiative beneficiated 110 112 people, carried 2 582 hearings, 4 245 lawsuits were presented, and 2 009 judgements (Sentencias) were issued (Poder Judicial del Perú, 2022). There are low levels of awareness of Itinerant Judges, with no one outside the judiciary having heard of them.
Justice fairs
The judiciary has implemented the initiative, Ferias Llapanchikpaq Justicia, which aims to bring justice services closer to the people through sessions where judges provide basic information to the population (mostly vulnerable) regarding their rights, using clear and simple language. Justice fairs are conducted by Superior Courts of Justice throughout the country twice a year (sometimes with judge involvement), which provide a form of remote service (mainly information) (Poder Judicial del Perú,2022).
Modules for the Judiciary User
The Modules for the Judiciary User are virtual or physical offices (in the 35 High Courts in the country) through which people can ask questions or consult on their cases. Created by the judiciary in 2020, these modules aim to standardise the services provided to users of judicial services.
Judicial Advisors
Judicial Advisors are women community leaders trained and accredited by the judiciary on issues regarding violence against women. They guide and advise people (free of charge) in their communities regarding violence against women, including justice pathways. Peruvian stakeholders reported to the OECD mission that there are currently 600 women serving as Judicial Advisors throughout the country. For 2030, the goal is to have 1 980 accredited Judicial Advisors in Peru with 47 528 beneficiaries (mostly vulnerable populations) (Poder Judicial del Perú, 2022).
Source: Poder Judicial del Perú (2022), Plan Nacional de Acceso a la Justicia de Personas en Condición de Vulnerabilidad 2022-2030 [National Plan of Access to Justice for vulnerable populations 2022-2030], Poder Judicial del Perú, Lima.
Furthermore, Peru has made notable efforts to guarantee prosecutors where there are judges in all judicial districts in the country.
In addition, the Public Ministry counts on forensic medicine experts to collect evidence. Despite the importance of these services, they are not present nationwide, according to the Public Ministry’s communications with the OECD mission. To address this, the Institute of Forensic Medicine provides certain doctors and psychologists with a technical guide to function as experts in judicial procedures. However, it is not yet clear if these efforts are enough to guarantee the presence of forensic medicine experts throughout the country to develop the important task within many justice pathways.
In the case of police commissariats, this institution is acknowledged as particularly important as the most widely distributed state presence throughout the country. In some areas, it is the only agent of the state. The Directorate of Criminality (Crimes Unit) of the national police is the organ in charge of organising, supervising and practising official expert testimonies (peritajes) and issues expert criminalistic reports (informes periciales) as part of investigations, which are required by the police, the Public Ministry and the judiciary. To improve Peruvians’ physical access to these services, additional Specialized Police Commissariats were assigned in remote and rural areas of the country.
Further, accessibility to the constitutional jurisdiction may vary across regions, depending on the availability of ordinary judges in the different judicial districts. However, there is a lack of knowledge and capacities and ordinary courts specialising in constitutional issues (Consejo para la Reforma del Sistema de Justicia, 2021[7]). This can result in unequal access to justice and disproportionately affect marginalised communities.
Despite efforts to improve the physical accessibility of formal justice services in Peru, geographical barriers remain for targeted populations. There are not enough formal justice services throughout the national territory, and mobile services seem insufficient to reach the rural population. This includes CEM, public defenders and criminal experts from the Public Ministry (e.g. forensic medicine, which is a key institution in cases of violence against women). Also, it is reported that there are not enough judges present or actively engaged in remote areas to prevent certain minor crimes (e.g. illegal logging and land theft).
Broader efforts to deliver specific services for vulnerable populations within the framework of mobile justice service delivery initiatives would be needed to improve access to justice for those populations. To do so, there is a need to create a consensus among different institutions (justice service and other service providers) and enact regulations. Other initiatives implemented by Peruvian institutions to improve physical access to justice, such as additional Specialized Police Commissariats in remote and rural areas of the country and the Hotline 100 (under the AURORA Program) (see Chapter 3) to reach out to victims of domestic violence are a good first step toward overcoming geographical barriers. However, the impact of these initiatives has not yet been measured. Further, measures requiring technology such as the Modules for the Judiciary User are not accessible for rural and Indigenous populations with limited or no Internet connections.
This challenge follows the trend in other OECD Member countries where the prohibitive cost of seeking justice in rural and remote areas is an increasing policy issue. While this challenge can be mitigated with outreach services (e.g. justice houses in Colombia and France) and the use of technology, it is particularly acute in some places (e.g. for Indigenous and native groups living in remote areas in several member and partner countries) (OECD, 2015[32]).
Moreover, to improve targeted populations’ accessibility to formal justice services, there is a need to address other barriers, as mentioned in Section 6.3, that should also be considered and addressed. These include low levels of trust in the system. Indeed, stakeholders report that trust in the national police, for example, seems to have been affected by alleged cases of integrity breaches, discriminatory behaviour, especially against Indigenous, peasants and LGBTQI groups and high levels of staff turnover. Indeed, citizens still tend to perceive that officials in police stations managing cases of violence against women tend to have limited training in this area. As mentioned in Chapter 3, one of the main challenges that the police face, and a challenge that affects its ability to perform its duties and functions effectively, is its relationship with citizens and communities, notably in certain regions of the country. This wider interpretation of the right of access to justice would also imply upgrading it to a fundamental right, enhancing mechanisms for its protection.
In this regard, some Peruvian justice institutions have made initial progress by reaching out to citizens to generate trust and empower them (see Box 6.5).
Box 6.5. Initiatives to build trust in justice institutions in Peru
Multiple entities in Peru, including law enforcement, the judiciary, government ministries and NGOs, are collaboratively launching a range of initiatives aimed at building and strengthening public trust in justice institutions.
The national police has created a participation division in charge of sensitising the citizenry to trust the institution in every police commissariat. The national police has also implemented strategies with neighbourhood councils (Juntas Vecinales) for this same purpose. The Ombuds Office and MIMP (through the CEM) also reported to the OECD mission that they are constantly implementing activities with Indigenous communities and women to promote legal literacy. Furthermore, MIMP has also implemented the Rural Strategy to Prevent Violence Against Women in rural areas of 72 districts throughout the country.
The judiciary has recently launched a programme called Peace in School Justice (Justicia de Paz Escolar), which not only aims to promote and preserve peace within public schools nationwide but also generate trust in institutions (within school communities) and sensitise children on family violence and other forms of violence and legal problems that can occur in school or within their households. In this sense, judges oversee sensitising and promoting legal literacy within the school community and of training elected school representatives (secondary students elected by the board of students), who would serve as peace judges within their schools, providing counsel and conciliation services to solve conflicts of daily conviviality. These peace judges also inform school directives on conflicts and problems detected both at school and in students’ households.
Regarding violence against women, Peru is actively conducting awareness campaigns to encourage the identification and reporting of sexual violence, aiming to boost women's confidence in justice institutions by clearly informing them about appropriate referral points and the necessary procedures to follow. However, these currently mainly target an adult audience, including young adults. Given that relationship interactions are set early, creating campaigns targeting younger youth would make sense. One example is the Spanish #pasiónnoesposesión campaign, consisting of a rap video and associated flyers and radio ads. H
Source: Poder Judicial del Perú (2022), Plan Nacional de Acceso a la Justicia de Personas en Condición de Vulnerabilidad 2022-2030 [National Plan of Access to Justice for vulnerable people 2022-2030], Poder Judicial del Perú, Lima; (OECD, 2022[20]), Gender Equality in Peru: Towards a Better Sharing of Paid and Unpaid Work, https://doi.org/10.1787/e53901b5-en.
Although these initiatives are a good starting point, there is still scope for Peru’s justice services (including courts, prosecutorial and police services) to lean into fostering trust and being user-friendly and culturally appropriate services that are free of bias and discrimination towards different communities, including vulnerable groups, to ensure they can reach fair resolutions. To this end, some practices in OECD Member countries might inspire Peru to increase trust in formal justice institutions (Box 6.6).
Box 6.6. OECD Member practices to increase trust in formal justice institutions and services
In Sweden, an ongoing court-based project designed to increase public confidence and trust in the courts conducted both internal and external dialogue on how their court was functioning and perceived to be functioning. The initiative included interviews with people involved in a court case directly after the case was concluded. This input from the users of court services informed several key policy reforms, both in terms of how judges interact with parties and on common policies for reception in courthouses, information for parties and how judgements are written.
In England and Wales (United Kingdom), individual service providers and justice institutions also took active measures to develop a targeted understanding of both their clients’ and users’ justice needs and how they experience the justice system on an ongoing basis.
In other countries, the need for services to be culturally appropriate included a combination of specific group services that are community-controlled and staffed, such as in Australia with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander justice services.
Source: (OECD, 2021[1]), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.
Awareness
In accordance with stakeholder interviews, systematic communication regarding the availability and access modes of services to the public – or indeed to other parts of the justice system – tends to be limited in Peru. Indeed, senior informants identified a lack of knowledge among the population in relation to their rights and the actions they can take to defend those rights, as well as a lack of available information. Indigenous people, teenagers and victims of domestic violence were all identified as specific cases of people who lacked awareness of their rights and awareness of the justice system. Furthermore, although the police are very well known and their importance was noted among Peruvians, there is a low level of awareness of Itinerant (mobile) Judges.
The justice fairs, led by the judiciary (Box 6.4) and involving several stakeholders, is one initiative-taking strategy conducted by the judiciary to improve the awareness of rights and available services for the community. However, Peru has yet to conduct impact assessments regarding the implementation of these fairs, and there is still space to improve Peruvians’ (e.g. targeted vulnerable populations’) awareness of these events.
People-centred justice services should be designed based on the premise that most people will require guidance and assistance in reaching the most appropriate service for their needs. Sound problem triage and referral processes consistent with a “no wrong door” approach are essential, particularly in complex societies such as Peru’s. Such processes are likely to exist or be developed when there is co-ordinated planning and service delivery between all services involved. This, in turn, will likely require strong leadership by an appropriate executive agency, such as the MINJUSDH. Further, clear and transparent information about the types of dispute resolution options and when they are appropriate, their cost and duration, and the likelihood of winning should be available to facilitate choices (OECD, 2021[1]). The case of Portugal can be useful to illustrate this (Box 6.7).
Box 6.7. OECD practices regarding a one-stop-shop to support the resolution of disputes
Portugal is currently preparing a basis for establishing online systems that could support the resolution of disputes. These systems could help diagnose the legal problems of citizens and businesses and inform them of their rights and options to help protect them and resolve their disputes by using big data. They can also provide an assisted negotiation stage, which could be followed by a seamless transition to an adjudication, depending on the nature of the dispute and involved stakeholders. This type of one-stop-shop for dispute resolution can facilitate the creation of a justice ecosystem and transform the resolution of disputes. To take the “one-stop justice shop” further, the initiative is scheduled to be linked to the existing citizens’ portal to facilitate early identification of problems and provide a unique interface for citizens.
Source: (OECD, 2020[33]), Justice Transformation in Portugal: Building on Successes and Challenges, https://doi.org/10.1787/184acf59-en.
Cost
Vulnerable populations in Peru still face barriers relating to cost when accessing formal justice services. For example, the level of judicial fees (Aranceles Judiciales) as a condition to access justice services can often act as a barrier, particularly for individuals with limited financial resources. These fees refer to the costs associated with filing lawsuits, requesting legal actions and accessing court services. Specific fees may vary depending on the nature of the case, the court involved and the type of procedure.
In contentious administrative proceedings, the judicial fees for 2023 start at PEN 50 (Peruvian soles) (EUR 12) (El Peruano, 2023[34]). Further, according to Doing Business, the cost of a commercial case is 35.7% of the claim value, higher than the Latin American and Caribbean average (31.4%) and well above the average for OECD high-income countries (21.2%) (World Bank, 2020[35])These charges can harm lower-income litigants. For example, when the imbalance is greater between the litigants (e.g. in cases between a mining company and a peasant community, between a bank and a client), the most powerful party can assume the judicial fees, while these are detrimental to the weakest parties, discouraging them from accessing judicial services. In addition to judicial fees, there are also indirect costs, such as lawyer's fees, because Peru’s judicial system establishes the mandatory presence of a lawyer. In cases with no mandatory judicial fees, additional charges must be paid for the state to provide certain documentation, such as copies of identity documents, criminal records and personal ownership certificates (Ardito-Vega, 2012[12]).
In Peru, efforts have been made to implement the Constitution’s principle on gratuity regarding judicial services to reduce economic barriers to accessing justice services. According to responses to the questionnaires conducted for this review, this constitutional principle has two scopes: one procedural in the sense of free processes and another related to the right of free defence of people with limited resources. The recently adopted Criminal Procedural Code includes the gratuity of criminal proceedings (except for procedural costs), while legal assistance to people of modest or no means is regulated in Article 24 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power (approved by Decree-Law No. 017-93-JUS of 1993). Despite this, Peru could continue improving the implementation of the gratuity principle to avoid inhibiting deprived populations from reaching out for formal justice services. Some OECD Member countries have implemented fee-waiver systems, and legal aid programmes are available to individuals who cannot afford court costs. In the United States, some states have implemented sliding-scale fee structures based on income. Public awareness campaigns and education programmes also aim to inform people of their rights and available resources.
Inclusiveness
Regarding intercultural justice, Peruvian authorities, notably the judiciary, have taken steps towards guaranteeing a co-ordinated and effective implementation of intercultural justice, considering international standards (Box 6.8).
Box 6.8. The judiciary’s efforts to enhance and promote the intercultural approach in Peru
Institutional arrangements, such as the creation within the judiciary of the National Office of Peace and Indigenous Justice (ONAJUP) (see Chapter 3) and an internal division to promote co-ordination and assistance in intercultural matters in the Public Ministry (created through Resolution No. 375-2022-MP-FN of 17 March 2022) are potential improvements to upgrade and showcase the intercultural approach in strategic and policy-making scenarios.
In 2011, a Work Commission was created within the judiciary to prepare a roadmap for co‑ordination between the judiciary and community justice, aiming to consolidate a justice system that responds to the multi-ethnic and cultural reality of Peru and provide public officials with guidelines to implement a differentiated approach when assisting or orienting justice service users.
Peruvian authorities have also been implementing legislation and regulations to promote the application of an intercultural approach to service provision, such as Ministerial Resolution No. 108-2021-JUS, which confirms that the provision of public defence services and access to justice should adopt an intercultural approach in favour of Indigenous or native peoples (see Chapter 3).
Efforts have been made to increase the number of Indigenous language-speaking interpreters in Peru. In 2019, the judiciary created the National Registry of Interpreters and Translators for Indigenous or Native Languages (RENIT). Today, this registry includes 92 interpreters/translators of Indigenous or native languages. However, the current number of available interpreters is insufficient given the demand (in the 35 judicial districts and a population of 57 718 855 Indigenous people); this would mean 1 interpreter for more than 62 000 Indigenous people. Also, these interpreters speak only 16 of the more than 40 Indigenous languages. However, interpretation efforts do not guarantee that the worldview and rights of Indigenous populations are respected in cases where their justice overlaps with common justice, as assessed in Section 6.4.
Peru has also made considerable efforts to train public officials’ legal defenders in multicultural justice issues. As a result, some legal defenders speak original languages. Judges and prosecutors have also received training on multicultural issues.
Source: Public Ministry Resolution N° 375-2022-MP-FN of 17 March 2022; Ministerial Resolution No. 108-2021-JUS; Plataforma digital única del Estado Peruano (2021), Política.
Although the judiciary has been the main actor in working to promote the intercultural vision in the justice administration system, other central institutions, such as the Public Ministry, the national police and the Public Defence system, have also implemented specific actions to improve and adapt their services considering the multicultural diversity of the country. Yet, much remains to be done for these institutions (and others delivering justice services) to introduce a robust intercultural justice policy (Zambrano, 2017[36]).
The judiciary has also made efforts to improve access to justice for specific population groups by creating a Judicial Alert System, as part of the SIJ, the internal information system of the judiciary with information on all judicial processes. The Judicial Alert System identifies priority cases, depending, for example, on the age of the victims, improving access to justice for specific populations. In this sense, this system identifies and alerts judges and judicial operators to cases of elderly people (over 75 years old) so that they are treated in a specific fashion and their cases are decided faster. Moreover, the Public Ministry created specialised prosecutor’s offices (Fiscalías) to investigate cases of violence against women (but not more courts or public defenders; see Chapter 3). Prosecutors in Peru have also received training on multicultural and gender issues.
Good practices in OECD Member countries, such as appropriate entry points, could inspire Peru to deliver more inclusive and targeted justice services. In fact, whether targeting disadvantaged people or the community in general, justice services require appropriate entry points designed from a people-centred perspective. For example, in Australia, in recent years, telephone legal helplines have been established in several states as a key entry point to legal assistance or related services for the community. These helplines are generally designed to provide initial information and referral for the client (OECD, 2021[1]).
6.5.2. Legal defence and legal aid services
Access
The public institutions in charge of providing public defence services, the number of services and the cases in which they proceed are described in Chapter 3. Beyond these institutions, Peru has a Bar Association that supports freedom of defence. The Junta de Colegios de Abogados del Perú is present across the national territory, providing pro bono services in Peru. However, this association has no records of the cases where they functioned as legal defenders or provided legal aid. Also, there appear to be no incentives in Peru to accept cases pro bono.
As to targeted vulnerable populations’ access to the Public Defence service (MINJUSDH), efforts have been made to increase the number of these services nationwide to overcome geographical barriers. The Public Defence District Directorates from the MINJUSDH provide mobile legal defence and conciliation services in co-ordination with PAIS, which provides services in rural areas through mobile and fixed mechanisms. However, rural populations are still unfamiliar with these services.
Despite these advances, legal defence and legal aid services still face challenges that affect these targeted vulnerable populations’ effective access to them and other justice services, including:
Geographical barriers: There appears to be limited presence of Public Defence in rural and remote areas. Also, in remote areas, there are no lawyers or pro bono options for the Indigenous and rural communities.
Insufficient staff (i.e. public defenders) and limited digital means to react more efficiently in cases regarding vulnerable populations.
Relative quality of assistance: The quality of public defence and legal aid services can vary depending on several factors. While some public defenders and legal aid lawyers in Peru are highly skilled and committed to providing quality representation, others may face challenges due to heavy workloads, limited resources and inadequate training. This might also affect Peruvians’ equal access to these services and their right to a fair outcome.
Awareness
Public Defence services (see Chapter 3) are well-recognised and considered important by most Peruvians. Yet, awareness of these services can vary among different population segments and may be influenced by factors such as education, socio-economic background, geographic location and previous exposure to the legal system.
Efforts have been made by the Peruvian government, civil society organisations and legal aid providers to promote the availability and benefits of public defence and legal aid services through various means, including:
Outreach programmes: Legal aid organisations and public defender offices often conduct outreach programmes and campaigns to inform communities about their services. These initiatives involve community workshops, legal clinics, public presentations and collaborations with local organisations to reach out to specific target groups.
Information campaigns: The government and legal aid providers have launched awareness campaigns through media channels, including television, radio, newspapers and social media. These campaigns aim to educate the public about their legal rights, the availability of free legal assistance and the importance of seeking legal support when needed.
Government websites and information resources: The Peruvian government, particularly the MINJUSDH, maintains websites and information resources that provide details about Public Defence services, legal aid centres and other legal assistance options. These online platforms can serve as valuable resources for citizens seeking information on available services.
However, Peru could benefit from continuing to improve awareness of the existence of conditions and ways to gain access to legal aid and legal assistance services for its population’s diverse groups. Peru could, therefore, further explore partnerships with community organisations to provide information on these services. Collaboration between legal aid providers and community organisations, such as NGOs, women’s groups, and Indigenous associations, could help raise awareness about legal services among specific populations. These partnerships could include joint events, training sessions and information dissemination through established community networks. An OECD Member country practice that can serve as an example to improve awareness of these types of services is the case of the Netherlands (Box 6.9).
Box 6.9. OECD Member practices to improve awareness of public defence and legal aid services
The Dutch legal aid service, Jurisdisch Loket, makes its services available at many legal service counters across the Netherlands and through Rechtwijzer (Signpost to Justice), an online legal guidance website which is also a virtual first stop for legal aid. The website offers a database of template legal letters so that individuals can initiate a legal process; a roadmap to justice, a “decision tree” that helps people interactively find solutions for their issues; and an online dispute resolution platform.
Source: (OECD, 2021[1]), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.
Figure 6.3. Pathways to public legal aid in Peru
Note: The figure provides information about the pathways Peruvians follow to existing public defence and legal aid services when experiencing legal and justice problems, including defence of victims (sponsorship), public criminal defence (sponsorship), legal counsel, multidisciplinary services and ADR mechanisms (conciliation).
Source: OECD with information from Law 29360, Public Defence Service Law; Law 30364, Law for the Prevention, Sanction, and Eradication of Violence against Women and Family Members; Law 26872, Conciliation Law; and information provided by the MINJUSDH and the AURORA Program during interviews from March 2023.
Cost
These services currently do not address all matters but only those that demand legal assistance (such as criminal defence and the defence of victims – including cases related to alimony, child support and arbitration). For other matters, legal assistance is expensive and difficult to obtain for disadvantaged people wherever they are. While possibly unaffordable, Lima and other urban centres have lawyers who could, in theory, be hired.
This cost-related limitation is common across most OECD Member countries. As a result, access to justice services is being hampered. Studies show that between 42% and 90% of individuals who decide not to seek legal assistance cite (perceived or actual) cost as the reason for not doing so (although there might be differences between actual and perceived costs). The cost of legal representation is also often cited as one of the primary reasons for the increase in the number of people appearing in court without legal counsel (self-represented litigants [SRLs]), as evidenced across a range of OECD Member countries, where this number goes as high as 50%. Depending on the legal capability of citizens or businesses, this situation may lead to less optimal outcomes than those who receive legal assistance (OECD, 2015[32]).
Peru has established free legal assistance centres (ALEGRAs) to overcome this limitation. These centres provide free legal assistance services and are aimed mainly at people with limited economic resources or belonging to a vulnerable population. Additionally, ALEGRAs offer free Public Defence services in family, civil and labour cases.
OECD Member countries have implemented a series of mechanisms to improve public defence and legal aid services. These include incentives to accept pro bono cases and consider cost subsidies or legal aid for ADR mechanisms if certain procedures favour certain groups (OECD, 2021[1]).
Inclusiveness
To qualify for public defence or legal aid in Peru, individuals must demonstrate that they lack the financial means to hire a private attorney. Eligibility is typically determined based on income and other relevant factors, such as family size and socio-economic circumstances. In this regard, according to Law 29809 of 2011, a person is considered to have limited resources when he or she cannot pay for the services of a lawyer without risking their subsistence or their family. Also, according to the Supreme Decree 009-2019-JUS, vulnerable populations with the right to legal defence services are, among others: children and adolescents, older adults, women, people with certain health conditions, people with disabilities, members of the LGBTQI community, members of Indigenous and native communities, and foreigners deprived of liberty.
Consequently, these services are targeted and inclusive in Peru. However, there is still space to broaden the scope of these services for other groups, for example, those who are not the most economically deprived. In this sense, some OECD Member countries have implemented legal assistance planning to reflect the needs of those who, despite not falling into the lowest income categories, cannot afford justice services on their own. This is because, in several countries, the lowest-income group has significantly better access to assistance than the second-lowest and middle-income groups (OECD, 2021[1]).
6.5.3. ADR mechanisms and services: Conciliation, arbitration and mediation
Access
Access to effective ADR mechanisms can be as important as access to courts. Chapters 4 and 6 presented the main components of Peru’s ADR mechanisms. This section will assess access issues in this area, notably on the part of vulnerable groups.
Peru has made initial efforts to create justice services accessible for all citizens, regardless of their income; thus, no-cost conciliation services exist. Also, to promote the use of ADR mechanisms to solve common and ordinary disputes among citizens, the government created the Popular Arbitration mechanisms, which proceed when claims do not exceed the maximum amount established by the law. The Centre for Popular Arbitration (Arbitra Perú) is a low-cost arbitration service aimed at solving conflicts, especially among MSMEs and civil society in general. Although this mechanism aims to promote the use of ADRs and make it more accessible for certain populations, there is still not enough information on how many people use arbitration services, their characteristics and whether people trust them.
Despite these efforts, ADR mechanisms remain underused by Peruvians (Chapter 4). This might be due to insufficient ADR services throughout the territory. In fact, the small number of pending cases and cases solved in judicial and extrajudicial conciliation (mentioned in Chapter 4), compared to the country's total population, might indicate insufficient services of this type nationwide. Therefore, the remaining barriers potentially impeding targeted vulnerable populations in Peru from accessing ADR mechanisms include geographical, cultural and awareness barriers. However, the Peruvian government has made efforts to address them:
Geographical barriers: To address these, since 2021, Peruvian authorities have launched virtual mass conciliation exercises (Conciliación). Inspired by similar exercises in Colombia, the MINJUSDH implements these exercises by providing free-of-charge extrajudicial conciliation services to citizens, aiming to reach the greatest possible number of people. The Peruvian government reported during the 2022 OECD mission that after the pandemic, these exercises were delivered virtually through a 3-day session, reaching 150-180 conciliations per month, on average. Although coverage still seems low, these exercises aim in the right direction toward promoting the use of ADR mechanisms to reach out to rural and economically deprived populations.
Cultural barriers: For some Indigenous communities, ADR services solve problems superficially, not considering the social context and particularities of the parties. This is why some maintain that while ADRs are a mechanism to solve certain conflicts, community justice mechanisms are forms of administering justice (Ardito-Vega, 2012[12]).
Awareness
Peruvian stakeholders reported implementing sporadic activities, such as campaigns and massive conciliation exercises (Conciliatones), to disseminate information on legal aid services; they also reported that the information disseminated through these activities is accessible and understandable to citizens.
However, the number of people accessing extra-conciliation services is still low compared to Peru’s total population. There is little awareness of available free conciliation and arbitration services among Peruvians. This may indicate a need for greater efforts to promote and educate the public about these services.
Peru could benefit from improving dissemination activities on ADR mechanisms and their benefits (in terms of cost and more efficient resolutions compared to in-court services). Peru could also co-ordinate the delivery of this information better; in fact, co-ordination of legal information and other services is important for streamlining service delivery most appropriately and avoiding duplication and waste. Partnerships with community organisations, mentioned above, to raise awareness concerning the availability of these services might also be helpful.
Some OECD Member countries have implemented triage systems as a good example of one-stop-shop structures for justice services, consistent with a "no wrong door" approach, where users can find, through technology, the dispute resolution mechanism best suited to meet their needs, as well as information and advice (an example of this is the case of Portugal, mentioned above).
Cost
One of the major advantages of these services is that they are no-cost or very low-cost justice service options. Vulnerable populations often face financial constraints and may struggle to afford the expenses associated with traditional court proceedings, as already described in this chapter. No-cost or low-cost ADR services can reduce the financial burden by providing accessible dispute resolution options that do not require significant financial resources. This affordability factor ensures that vulnerable populations can pursue justice and resolution without being hindered by economic limitations.
Inclusiveness
The creation of the ALEGRAs, through which no-cost conciliation services are provided, constitutes a major step toward offering targeted services to vulnerable populations in Peru. This initiative seems to be inspired by other initiatives implemented in Latin American countries, such as the Rights House (Casa de Direitos) in Brazil, the Justice Houses (Casas de Justicia) in Colombia, and the Centers for Access to Justice (Centros de Acceso a la Justicia) in Argentina. Thus, the model goes beyond providing a unique justice service to providing comprehensive legal services for victims. According to MINJUSDH, there are 46 ALEGRAs and 5 mega ALEGRAS (ALEGRAs with bigger space and multidisciplinary teams) nationwide.
Despite available ADR mechanisms in Peru, there are limitations regarding the problems they can solve, as is the case in most countries where they exist (e.g. they cannot be used in cases regarding domestic violence or violence against women). Yet, they do provide targeted services for some vulnerable populations in Peru. Indeed, given that they are no-cost or low-cost services, extrajudicial conciliation and Popular Arbitration are also initiatives that move in the right direction toward improving access to justice for specific and vulnerable populations. They could still expand their impact and establish follow-up mechanisms to measure said impact.
6.5.4. Justice of the Peace judges and other community justice mechanisms
Access
The Justice of the Peace (No Letrada) provides an opportunity for greater user input and more accessible and affordable justice services in local regions (i.e. for rural, native and Indigenous communities). They are reported to be more trustworthy than services provided by other justice institutions, mostly in rural areas, where this justice has seemed to adapt better to the social context than the judge or court that imposes legal standards without much consideration of the effect it will have on the parties. Yet, there is still the need to strengthen this institution by creating or adapting an information system where Justice of the Peace judges could include information on the cases they decide on. Also, their scope and co‑ordination within the Peruvian judicial system should be regulated by law. These reforms could be proposed by the ONAJUP or the Local Offices (located in each district and attached to the Superior Courts) in Charge of Supporting Peace Justice (ODAJUP). Moreover, Justice of the Peace judges are assigned without considering existing geographical barriers. This means there are still limitations for remote populations to access these services, as these judges do not have the means to travel.
On the other hand, community justice mechanisms are considered by some targeted vulnerable populations as a “tailor-made” justice system, trusted, usually operating within the communities (to overcome geographical barriers), where the same language of the parties is spoken. Even in areas where Spanish is spoken, community justice mechanisms use understandable and non-technical language.
Both the Justice of the Peace and community mechanisms can offer advantages for vulnerable populations by providing culturally appropriate and accessible justice options. These mechanisms recognise and respect vulnerable communities' cultural identity, traditions and values; they may also help overcome language barriers, increase trust in the justice system, and ensure community participation. Further, both mechanisms imply – usually verbal – swift procedures with no formalities. While Justice of the Peace and community justice mechanisms have helped targeted vulnerable populations in Peru to overcome most of the barriers that usually exist when accessing formal justice services, they can still be strengthened and articulated with formal justice institutions and services, as it is important to ensure that community justice processes align with human rights standards, gender equality and the protection of individual rights. (Chapter 3).
Awareness
The Justice of the Peace and community mechanisms are perhaps the most known justice services in Peru; rural and remote populations and Indigenous and economically deprived populations often use these services. Yet, more and clearer information on the type of cases, the type of users and resolutions delivered by these mechanisms could be improved.
Cost
Communal authorities do not charge when they administer justice. Only in some very isolated cases has there been the payment of fees when there was conciliation. In the Justice of the Peace, small fees are usually paid but are, in any case, much lower than judicial fees. The cost advantages of these mechanisms help overcome financial barriers that usually keep vulnerable populations from using formal justice services.
Inclusiveness
While these mechanisms constitute an important effort in terms of creating services aimed at improving access to justice for specific vulnerable populations, there is still space to better train Justices of the Peace on human rights and gender issues, for instance, to strengthen criteria for them to decide on protection measures in cases of violence. Also, as most Justices of the Peace, the leaders of the patrols and the presidents of the communities are men, there is still space for considering the gender scope within these mechanisms and for women to fully exercise their rights.
Moreover, community mechanisms also have limits regarding the justice problems they can solve. In rural populations, as in urban areas, there may be situations of social differentiation and concentration of power, the same ones that proper administration mechanisms of justice could reinforce. Frequently, it is gender differences that are reinforced in these mechanisms. There are other types of conflicts, such as homicides and drug trafficking, which are out of the scope of community justice mechanisms. Finally, it is important to recognise that some sanctions may violate citizens' fundamental rights.
Having an intercultural justice system and service delivery approach is key to delivering quality access to justice for all. Peru has made important progress towards this goal (Box 6.8). However, the Peruvian Constitution does not go deep into Indigenous populations’ right to justice; nor does it establish an Indigenous jurisdiction. In fact, the only autonomous jurisdiction recognised by the Constitution besides the ordinary is the Military Jurisdiction (Article 139). Further, in Peru, no laws develop or regulate international standards to properly implement Indigenous justice or articulate it with ordinary justice. The implementation of Indigenous justice in practice and its articulation with ordinary justice is not evident, jeopardising the cultural outlook and beliefs of Indigenous people as well as their effective access to justice and their trust in justice institutions. Moreover, although most Indigenous populations in Peru do not identify themselves as such (as discussed in Section 6.3), it is not clear whether community justice guarantees respect of the cultural outlook/worldview of all Indigenous communities.
OECD Member countries and others have further developed laws and autonomous jurisdictions to guarantee Indigenous communities’ right to administer justice within the framework of the national judicial system but in a way that respects these communities’ cultural outlook/worldview. Examples of how other countries have implemented intercultural justice systems might be useful (Box 6.10).
Box 6.10. Autonomous Indigenous systems in Colombia and Bolivia
Colombia’s 1991 Constitution establishes an autonomous and independent Indigenous jurisdiction, which is part of the judicial branch. Also, the Colombian Constitutional Court has produced rulings in favour of the independence of Indigenous justice that has set a standard for other Latin American countries.
The Colombian Constitution (1991) guarantees legal and cultural visibility and acknowledges Indigenous identity by recognising the authority of Indigenous groups within their territories “in accordance with their own laws and procedures as long as these are not contrary to the Constitution and the laws of the Republic” (Article 246). The Constitution establishes that the law should set out the forms of co-ordination of this special jurisdiction with the national justice system. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court established the obligation to comply with the principle of ethnic and cultural diversity, which is to be harmonised with the Constitution. The scope of the Special Indigenous Jurisdiction (Jurisdiccion Especial Indígena) is not confined to criminal matters but also includes administrative, environmental, education and health matters. Moreover, many differences exist among Indigenous jurisdictions, unlike the national justice system, which is built on common principles and leans towards homogenisation. In practice, cases are solved by the main authority of each town hall (Cabildo), and all, including formal justice operators, must respect the rulings. The Colombian Constitutional Court has imposed limits on the legal competence of the Special Indigenous Jurisdiction about due process, human life and personal integrity. Minimum guarantees must be complied with, including the principles of legality, impartiality, competency, publicity, presumption of innocence and proportionality of sanction.
The Bolivian Constitution (2009) places Indigenous justice on an equal footing with ordinary justice. In particular, the Bolivian Constitution creates a new institution: the Indigenous Constitutional Court, which comprises Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, is the first such institution in Latin America. Furthermore, in 2010, Bolivia enacted the Jurisdictional Demarcation Law of Bolivia (Ley de declined jurisdictional de Bolivia). This law, although criticised for submitting, in its implementation, Indigenous justice to ordinary justice, is the only existing law of co-ordination between Indigenous justice and ordinary justice in all Latin America.
Source: (CEJA, 2021[37]; OECD, 2020[5]).
Looking ahead, Peru could benefit from strengthening Indigenous justice, if not by constitutionally creating an (autonomous and independent) Indigenous jurisdiction, then by developing a legal framework to recognise the legal status (personería jurídica) of all Indigenous communities, and not only for those nominated rural or native communities.
Peru could also benefit from developing legal or regulatory provisions that regulate co-ordination and interaction between the Indigenous community and the ordinary justice systems. Such regulation could reduce the chance of double jeopardy and redundant procedures.
Despite the current broad range of justice service options both in and out of court, including community options, some are not necessarily readily accessible to everyone experiencing legal needs to help them resolve their problems. Lack of awareness also limits people’s willingness and ability to obtain information about justice options available to satisfy their legal needs. Economic barriers to access justice services should spur all institutions providing justice services (also non-court services) to conduct analysis on how to deliver zero-cost services. There is also still a gap in meeting the needs of Indigenous populations; targeted service delivery can be improved by strengthening cultural awareness among public officials delivering justice services and creating policies and programmes with a differential approach. There is space to create a proper Indigenous jurisdiction articulated with the judicial system and other justice services in the country.
As such, there is scope in Peru to strengthen the provision of targeted and inclusive people-centred services to all Peruvians. In this regard, Peru could pursue work on tailoring services to identify and meet the specific needs of targeted vulnerable populations. A valuable tool that can be applied to support this work is a legal needs survey (LNS). In this connection, in 2024, the OECD will work with the MINJUSDH and other relevant partners to design and conduct such a survey in Peru's pilot regions: Lima and San Martin. The results of this LNS will be used to issue a complementary report to this review on access and pathways issues in 2024. They could pave the way for Peru to conduct a national LNS on a regular basis and update the evidence base on needs and access issues accordingly.
6.6. Summary assessment
Peruvian institutions have taken initial steps to improve access to justice services, and notably for Peru’s most vulnerable populations, through recent institutional reforms and by adopting a robust normative system to improve vulnerable populations’ access to justice. Progress has also been made in recent years to increase the availability and accessibility of justice services across the territory, with the aim of reducing geographical barriers and procedural burdens (e.g. through mobile services). Also, Peru’s institutions have started to respond to the need for more integrated services through co-ordination strategies to deliver clusters of services that better meet the population’s needs (e.g. through the ALEGRAs). Peru has also made progress by creating targeted initiatives that can serve as a starting point on the path to responding to the needs of specific populations (e.g. Justice of the Peace judges, no-cost extrajudicial conciliation and Popular Arbitration).
Yet, there is further scope to strengthen the coherence, co-ordination and accessibility of legal and justice services in Peru. This first requires empowering and strengthening the capacity of the MINJUSDH to take on a leadership and co-ordination role for planning and delivering justice services, with appropriate allocation of resources. Currently, the relative power and scope of policy and service mandates and responsibilities that have been assigned to the judicial system tend to go beyond the traditional administrative and adjudication functions, which could generate systemic barriers to engaging in the effective implementation of justice reforms that place people at the centre of the justice system and focus on the full range of legal and justice services, beyond the judiciary.
Taking steps to empower the MINJUSDH and related institutions to play a stronger role in the planning and delivery of a broader range of legal and justice services could bring Peru closer to OECD Member country practices by adopting progressively more people-centred approaches to justice as the country modernises its justice system. In order to do this, there is also scope for Peruvian institutions within both the executive and the judiciary to strengthen their roles (e.g. through greater resourcing and capacity-building activities) and their interagency/institutional co-ordination. Indeed, Peru could benefit from reforms that build on recent achievements within the judiciary that a whole-of-state and long-term vision regarding justice in the country has framed. Adopting the spirit of the Public Policy for the Reform of the Justice System regarding access to justice could guide further reforms in the pursuit of this goal.
Furthermore, Peruvian justice institutions are currently facing the challenge of guaranteeing access to justice to all, especially those in vulnerable conditions. Notably, while having specific justice and legal needs, vulnerable populations are more prone to experience barriers to accessing justice services, many of which are still related to remoteness, system complexity and cost. These barriers are mostly faced by women, including victims or potential victims of violence, Indigenous and Afro-Peruvian communities, rural populations and the LGBTQI community. These barriers could be better identified to improve justice services and to guarantee access to specific populations. As such, Peru’s justice institutions have scope to enhance access to justice policies and programmes by reducing and eliminating institutional, cost and policy barriers and by ensuring that these policies and programmes effectively respond to people’s legal needs.
In this context, Peru is encouraged to identify and measure the legal needs of the most vulnerable populations, going beyond those who reach formal justice institutions such as courts, tribunals and traditional legal processes, but also considering those legal problems and needs experienced by the community that do not or cannot make it to the formal justice system. Peru could also benefit from identifying “what works” in terms of services responding to the most vulnerable populations’ needs. To do so, it needs to consider people, circumstances and emotions; pathways to resolution and support regarding how people experience legal and justice problems; and how they engage along these available pathways to address them. In addition, legal assistance, legal aid, and various mechanisms for resolving disputes (e.g. courts, conciliation) could be better connected to users' needs while enhancing trust in justice services. Justice of the Peace and other community justice mechanisms could also be further strengthened and articulated with other justice institutions and services.
Finally, there is strong scope to enhance justice service awareness among vulnerable populations to equip them with the knowledge and skills to navigate the justice system so that they can successfully address their own legal issues.
6.7. Recommendations
In light of the above assessment, Peru could consider implementing the following recommendations:
6.7.1. Key recommendations
Implement measures including assigning increased human and financial resources to overcome remaining geographical and system complexities, cultural, language, and financial barriers to access justice services. To facilitate the implementation of this recommendation Peru may consider:
Expanding the presence of key justice institutions throughout the national territory (e.g. police, public prosecution, and public defence services) into areas of greatest need.
Introducing measures to improve the implementation of the gratuity principle. This would avoid inhibiting deprived populations from reaching out for formal justice services, aiming at no-cost justice services for vulnerable populations. In the case of no-cost public defence and legal aid, Peru should be encouraged to implement incentives to raise pro bono cases.
Implementing efforts to guarantee and promote institutions that are sensitive to cultural diversity. The inclusion of specialised experts or institutions such as the amicus curiae that can enlighten the court regarding the cosmovision of Indigenous communities and the existence of a body of translators or interpreters, as well as the existence of processes, practices and institutions adapted to Indigenous requirements, are all measures that could be incorporated into ordinary justice to guarantee that access to justice is genuinely possible for Indigenous people.
Increasing technological literacy for all Peruvians and design technological services considering population-specific circumstances. This could be done by increasing their access to the Internet and the use of ICT, considering that in certain areas, service providers may need to use low-tech solutions. Also, modernise all justice institutions and co-ordinate efforts to provide users with holistic and articulated technological tools to improve their access to justice services.
Strengthening public defence and legal aid services to ensure access to justice for all individuals and vulnerabilities. Strengthening the role of relevant institutions and establish clear justice pathways to facilitate people's access to justice services. These services help bridge the justice gap by providing free or affordable legal assistance to those who cannot afford private representation. Strengthening these services helps to uphold the principle that everyone should have equal access to legal remedies and protection of their rights. To facilitate the implementation of this recommendation Peru may consider:
Strengthening the public defence service (MINJUSDH) with sufficient staff (i.e. public defenders) and digital means.
Raising pro bono options for rural communities, including the Indigenous people. Implementing incentives could be a first step towards this goal.
Improving co-ordination and co-operation between institutions in order to provide legal aid and legal defence by enhancing a unified information system regarding public defence and legal assistance.
Strengthening the role of relevant institutions (e.g. police commissariats and shelters) and establishing clear justice pathways for women victims of violence. Also, consider better disseminating the roles of these institutions and pathways. The creation of survivor-centred justice pathways, as well as their integration with services that remove women’s (victims of violence) barriers to access services, is vital.
Considering regulating and co-ordinating justice mobility/itinerant services in the country. Itinerary justice services can bring legal services directly to underserved areas with limited access to justice. By regulating these services, Peru can ensure that they are provided in a consistent and organised manner, reaching remote and rural communities that may have limited access to legal representation and court facilities. Further, regulating itinerary services facilitates co-ordination and collaboration among different stakeholders in the justice system, such as legal aid organisations, courts and community-based initiatives. Peru can establish guidelines and protocols for these services to ensure effective communication, collaboration and referral mechanisms. This promotes a comprehensive approach to access to justice and prevents duplication of efforts, benefiting the communities being served.
Implementing measures to improve co-ordination across justice services and the institutions that design and deliver them to provide the best response to citizens. Specific recommendations on this aspect are detailed in Chapter 3.
6.7.2. Medium/long-term recommendations
Pursue a whole-of-state effort to design and implement a comprehensive, integrated policy on access to justice in Peru. To implement this recommendation Peru may consider:
Implementing a strategic approach with a broader definition of the right of access to justice. This could be achieved through legislation and, if necessary, constitutional change to extend its scope beyond the framework of judicial due process and in-court justice services to encompass justice as a public service, where there is a people-centred design and delivery of legal and justice services. This wider interpretation of the right of access to justice would also imply upgrading it to a fundamental right, enhancing mechanisms for its protection.
Enhancing institutional mandates to become people-centred. The judiciary, the Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations (MIMP) and the MINJUSDH all demonstrate a solid commitment to the constitutional, legal and institutional mandates they currently have. However, work needs to be done to ensure these mandates are reviewed and amended to be more people-centred and that the awareness and buy-in of the centrality of a people-centred approach spread across the system and becomes embedded – hard-wired – within it. Adapting these mandates to be more people-centred will, over time, see progressive shifting attitudes and actions towards people-centred approaches. This will be a challenging and long-term task and may involve the reinterpretation of “the administration of justice”. For instance, resources could be committed to reviewing how the justice system and its key institutions can achieve more people-centred mandates.
Implementing additional measures to improve vulnerable populations’ access to justice. Peru would benefit from reforms (some that build on recent achievements) based on a whole-of-state and long-term vision regarding access to justice in the country. The spirit of the Public Policy for the Reform of the Justice System regarding access to justice could be a first step towards this goal.
As a key tool to design and implement a comprehensive, integrated policy on access to justice, carry out a legal needs survey (LNS) regularly on a national scale. To implement this recommendation Peru may consider:
Implementing ongoing national people-centred LNSs and other methods to identify the major legal and justice needs of the national population, especially the most vulnerable (women, Indigenous groups and LGBTQI communities). These needs assessment tools should focus on engaging directly with the people to understand the types of problems they experience, the impact they have on their lives, the realistic pathways and available services, and ultimately, to gain insight into what the people themselves want in terms of outcomes and pathways.
Peru could use the first LNS pilots in the two regions of Lima and San Martin as a basis upon which to build a national-scale LNS. A more detailed subregional-level focus will be useful for effectively planning and delivering services for a territorialisation strategy that integrates all justice institutions and develops a continuum of options for identifying, anticipating, preventing and resolving legal issues.
Consider strengthening the Ombuds Office’s targeted studies. As a support measure to an eventual national LNS, targeted studies conducted by the Ombuds Office could be strengthened, so that they broaden their scope and include all vulnerable populations in Peru.
Pursuing and expanding the justice sector’s current system-wide efforts to identify the most effective, efficient and sustainable strategies for service delivery. This applies especially to those led by the Commission for Access to Justice for Vulnerable People and Justice in Your Community, the AURORA Program, and the Ombuds Office). A national “what works” process for the justice sector could be established under the MINJUSDH to ensure lessons learned are captured, communicated, and available for application in other parts of the justice sector. Also, a greater emphasis should be placed on engaging with the users of services to survey their satisfaction with processes and the effectiveness of outcomes. A strategic approach should be taken to conducting people-centred evaluations of services and new initiatives, as appropriate.
Enhancing civil society’s engagement and participation in policy making and law making. Civil society’s voice should be better reflected in the design of legal and justice services between providers and potential users to consider users’ needs and experiences to feel equal under the law. These measures would have a direct impact on Peruvians’ trust in justice institutions and in fair processes and outcomes.
Identify and remove structural and systemic barriers to access to justice and continue working on eliminating existing barriers for vulnerable populations to access justice services in Peru. To implement this recommendation Peru may consider:
Identifying and assessing vulnerable populations’ barriers when accessing justice services to defend their fundamental rights to improve their access to justice. Barriers and problems faced by women (not necessarily victims or potential victims of violence), Indigenous groups, representatives of rural populations and the LGTBTI community could be better identified and visualised to improve justice services and to guarantee access to specific populations.
Enhancing mechanisms to reduce discriminatory practices hampering vulnerable populations’ access to justice services in Peru. This would imply, among others:
Creating a national register of cases of discrimination against women, Indigenous and LGBTQI populations. Make the contents of the register accessible across the judicial system and to key stakeholders.
Enhancing justice operators’ training and capacity to eradicate stereotypes and prejudices. Consider adopting measures to raise awareness and train public officials on violence against the LGBTQI community. Also, consider adopting a protocol for the investigation and delivery of justice services regarding cases of violence against LGBTQI people.
Continuing training and sensitising public officials (e.g. judges and police) in pathways. Raise the availability of training programmes on the ground in various regions and communities across the country. Implement actions to enhance people’s trust in them. Public officials can be further trained to adopt a gender perspective to address cases of violence against women.
Implementing awareness activities with the communities that interface with all justice system components. This could be achieved by implementing clear and accessible language communication strategies about justice services (emphasising ADR mechanisms). In addition, encourage a systematic focus on identifying target audiences and target communities for services and seeking to employ the most effective communication mechanisms for that audience. Partnerships with community organisations and sound problem triage and referral processes consistent with a “no wrong door” approach might be helpful to reach this goal.
Continue strengthening institutions for a better delivery of people-centred justice services. To implement this recommendation Peru may consider:
Strengthening Justice of the Peace and community justice services to ensure they operate in the best possible ways and avoid potential conflicts between customary and formal legal systems while ensuring human rights safeguards and protections. This could be done by:
Providing greater support (in terms of training) to the Justices of the Peace and the Indigenous dispute resolution mechanisms. This would allow them to ensure they operate at the best possible level and as closely as possible with constitutional, human rights and gender-informed processes.
Enacting and implementing a law to regulate the scope of Justice of the Peace judges (no letrados) and their co-ordination with the rest of the justice system. In addition, Justice of the Peace Judges could be trained on human rights and gender issues. Also, consider creating or adapting an information system where Justice of the Peace Judges could include information on the cases they decide on.
Progressively adapting and implementing an information system to register cases and decisions within the community justice mechanisms.
Enacting and implementing a law to define the scope of the Indigenous justice jurisdiction and its co-ordination and interaction with the formal jurisdiction. This law should:
Comply with international standards regarding Indigenous justice.
Clearly define and regulate interaction and co-ordination between the Indigenous/community and the ordinary justice systems, based on fostering intercultural dialogue, guaranteeing co-ordination capacity, fostering jurisdictional exchange, and guaranteeing the protection and promotion of Indigenous rights to cultural and ethnic diversity.
Establish clear limitations for implementing Indigenous justice to ensure consistency with constitutional and human rights standards.
References
[12] Ardito-Vega, W. (2012), La Promoción del Acceso a la Justicia en la Zonas Rurales, Poder Judicial del Perú, https://centroderecursos.cultura.pe/sites/default/files/rb/pdf/Lapromociondelaccesoalajusticiaenlaszonasrurales.pdf.
[24] Brandt, H. (2017), La justicia Comunitaria y la Lucha por una Ley de Coordinación de la Justicia Comunitaria [Communitarian Justice and the Struggle for a Law, Which Regulates the Coordination of the Judicial Systems], https://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/derechopucp/article/view/18647.
[29] CEJ (2023), Corporación Excelencia en la Justicia (2023), Jueces y Fiscales por cada 100 000 habitantes en Colombia,, https://cej.org.co/indicadores-de-justicia/oferta-institucional/jueces-y-fiscales-por-cada-100-000-habitantes/.
[37] CEJA (2021), La Justicia Indigena y la Justicia Ordinaries frente a los Conflicts Civiles Camino para su Articulación [Indigenous Justice and Ordinary Justice in Civil Cases in the Path to their Articulation], Santiago de Chile, https://biblioteca.cejamericas.org/bitstream/handle/2015/5697/PUB_justiciaindigena.pdf?sequence=1.
[7] Consejo para la Reforma del Sistema de Justicia (2021), Política Pública de Reforma del Sistema de Justicia [Public Policy for the Justice System Reform], https://www.gob.pe/institucion/consejo-de-justicia/informes-publicaciones/2021932-politica-publica-de-reforma-del-sistema-de-justicia.
[21] Defensoría del Pueblo (2021), Violencia Contra las Mujeres: Cuando las Herramientas Judiciales son Utilizadas Indebidamente por los Agresores-Análisis de Casos [Violence against women: when judicial tools are unduly used by agressors-case analysis], https://www.defensoria.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Hostigamiento-uso-de-herramientas-judiciales-casos.pdf.
[15] Defensoría del Pueblo (2018), El Proceso de Alimentos en el Perú: Avances, Dificultades y Retos [Alimony procedure in Peru: strides, dificulties and challenges], https://www.defensoria.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DEFENSORIA-ALIMENTOS-JMD-27-07-18-2.pdf.
[14] Defensoría del Pueblo (2017), La Ley N° 30364, La Administración de Justicia y la Visión de las víctimas [Law No. 30364, Justice Administration and the victims´ vision], https://www.defensoria.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Informe-de-Adjuntia-N-063-2017-DP-ADM.pdf.
[34] El Peruano (2023), “Resolución Administrativa N.° 000474-2022-CE-PJ”, https://www.gob.pe/institucion/pj/normas-legales/4301036-000474-2022-ce-pj.
[4] Gomez, K. (2023), Alternative dispute Resolution mechanisms and transformative constitutionalism in Latin America: How a people-driven and effective universal access to justice fosters rule of law and generates social inclusion, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4323903.
[31] IEP (2023), Índice de Paz Mexico 2023, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5eaa390ddf0dcb548e9dd5da/t/647041b385d0307a47a4573a/1685078486067/ESP-MPI-2023-web.pdf.
[30] INE (2019), Estadísticas Judiciales 2019, http://Instituto Nacional de Estadística de Chile (2019), Estadísticas Judiciales 2019, Santiago de Chile, https://www.ine.gob.cl/docs/default-source/justicia/publicaciones-y-anuarios/difusi%C3%B3n/informe-anual-estad%C3%ADsticas-judiciales-2019.pdf.
[10] INEI (2022), Acceso y Uso de las Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación en los Hogares y por la Pobliación, 2010-2021, https://www.gob.pe/institucion/inei/informes-publicaciones/3966747-peru-acceso-y-uso-de-las-tecnologias-de-informacion-y-comunicacion-en-los-hogares-y-por-la-poblacion-2010-2021.
[9] INEI (2022), “Perú: 50 años de cambios, desafíos y oportunidades poblacionales”, https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/3396297/Per%C3%BA%3A%2050%20a%C3%B1os%20de%20cambios%2C%20desaf%C3%ADos%20y%20oportunidades%20poblacionales.pdf?v=1657734986.
[17] INEI (2020), Encuesta Demográfica y de Salud Familiar 2020 [2020 Demographic and Family Health Survey], https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1795/pdf/cap011.pdf.
[18] INEI (2018), Encuesta Demográfica y de Salud Familiar 2018 [2018 Demographic and Family Health Survey], https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1656/index1.html.
[23] INEI (2018), Perú: Perfil Sociodemográfico, Informe Nacional, Censos Nacionales 2017: XII de Población, VII de Vivienda y III de Comunidades Indígenas [Peru: 2017 Socio-demografic Profile: XII population Census, VII Housing Census, III Indigenous Communities Census], https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1539/libro.pdf.
[25] INEI (2017), Primera Encuesta Virtual para Personas LGTBI [First Virtual Survey for LGTBI People], https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/boletines/lgbti.pdf.
[28] Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2023), Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs - Judgment of February 4, 2023, https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_484_esp.pdf.
[26] Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2020), Case of Azul Rojas Marín Vs. Peru - Ruling of March 12, 2020, https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_402_esp.pdf.
[13] La Rota, M.E. et al. (2014), Ante la Justicia: Necesidades Jurídicas y Acceso a la Justicia en Colombia [Prior to Justice: Legal Needs and Access to Justice in Colombia], https://www.dejusticia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/fi_name_recurso_665.pdf.
[8] Latinobarómetro (2021), Informe 2021 Adios Macondo [2021 Report Goodbye Macondo], http://www.latinobarometro.org/lat.jsp.
[11] MINJUSDH (2021), Boletín Estadístico de Defensa Pública. I Trimestre 2021, https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/1956368/BOLETIN%20ESTADISTICO%20DEFENSA%20PUBLICA.pdf.pdf?v=1624055069.
[27] MINJUSDH (2020), II Encuesta de Derechos Humanos: Población LGBT [II National Human Rights Survey: LGBT Population], https://salutsexual.sidastudi.org/es/registro/a53b7fb37256b87c01732d3469bc02e0.
[22] MINJUSDH (2018), Plan Nacional de Derechos Humanos 2018-2021, https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/1539318/PLAN-NACIONAL-2018-2021.pdf.pdf.
[3] Nylund, A. (2014), Access to Justice: Is ADR a help or Hindrance? The Future of Cicil Litigation - Access to Courts and Court-annexed Mediation in the Nordic Countries, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-04465-1_16.
[2] OECD (2023), OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-centred Justice System, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0498.
[20] OECD (2022), Gender Equality in Peru: Towards a Better Sharing of Paid and Unpaid Work, Gender Equality at Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e53901b5-en.
[1] OECD (2021), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.
[5] OECD (2020), Gender Equality in Colombia: Access to Justice and Politics at the Local Level, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b956ef57-en.
[33] OECD (2020), Justice Transformation in Portugal: Building on Successes and Challenges, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/184acf59-en.
[32] OECD (2015), Equal Access to Justice - OECD Expert Roundtable Background Notes, https://www.oecd.org/gov/Equal-Access-Justice-Roundtable-background-note.pdf.
[19] Plataforma digital única del Estado Peruano (2020), Línea 100 del MIMP incrementó en 97% las llamadas durante el 2020, Nota de Prensa Ministerio de la Mujer y Poblaciones Vulnerables, http://www.gob.pe/institucion/mimp/noticias/325922-linea-100-del-mimp-incremento-en-97-las-atenciones-de-llamadas-durante-el-2020.
[6] Poder Judicial del Perú (2022), Informe de Logros Alcanzados 2022 de la Comisión de Acceso a la Justicia de Personas en condición de Vulnerabilidad y Justicia en tu Comunidad [2022 Achievements Report of the Commission for Access to Justice for Vulnerable People and Justice].
[16] Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (2021), Estudio para determinar el nivel de calidad de servicio de los Centros de Asistencia Legal Gratuita [Study to determine the quality of the service provided by the Centres of Free Legal Assistance], https://ejenopenal.pe/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/MINJUSDH-INFORME-FINAL-ALEGRA-2021.03.29.pdf.
[35] World Bank (2020), Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/32436.
[36] Zambrano (2017), BAGUA: Entendiendo al Derecho en un Contexto Culturalmente Complejo (BAGUA: Understanding Law in a culturally complex context), https://repositorio.pucp.edu.pe/index/handle/123456789/110976.