Peru: Investigation into Forced Sterilisations Dismissed, Leaving Thousands of Women Still Waiting for Justice

Translated by Martina Marino

On 27 October 2026, the Peruvian Public Prosecutor’s Office announced its decision to dismiss the investigation into the forced sterilisation procedures carried out under the government of Alberto Fujimori, who was in power from 1990 to 2000. The proceedings concerned complaints filed by 4,172 people who had undergone sterilisation procedures without having given their free and informed consent, as part of a state-promoted healthcare policy implemented during the 1990s. After more than twenty years of investigations, the decision brought the judicial proceedings against 52 individuals involved in various capacities in the implementation of the programme to an end, including former government officials and healthcare authorities.

The decision, issued by Prosecutor Jesús Víctor Dávila Rojas, is particularly controversial. According to reports by El País and the EFE news agency, the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself acknowledged the existence of evidence pointing to a systematic and widespread practice that could amount to crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, the investigation was dismissed under Law No. 32107 of 2024, which restricts the prosecution of acts committed before July 2002 as crimes against humanity and provides for the application of the limitation periods established under national law.

For the women who have spent nearly thirty years seeking recognition of the abuses they suffered, the decision represents yet another obstacle. Many of them belong to Indigenous and rural communities that have historically faced poverty and discrimination. The closure of the investigation therefore raises questions about the ability of Peruvian institutions to guarantee access to justice for victims of serious human rights violations.

Forced Sterilisations under the Fujimori Government

The events under investigation date back to the National Programme for Reproductive Health and Family Planning, implemented between 1996 and 2000. The initiative had been presented by the Fujimori government as a means of expanding access to family planning services and combating poverty in a country characterised by deep social and territorial inequalities.

However, its implementation was marked by serious irregularities. According to figures cited by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, more than 314,000 female sterilisation procedures and approximately 24,000 male sterilisation procedures were performed during the programme. These figures represent the total number of procedures carried out and should not be interpreted in their entirety as confirmed cases of forced sterilisation. Subsequent investigations have nevertheless documented numerous instances in which consent was obtained through pressure, threats, inadequate information or outright forms of coercion.

The campaigns primarily targeted rural areas and the most economically vulnerable communities. In several cases, women underwent surgery without being adequately informed of the permanent consequences of the procedure. Testimonies collected over the years describe pressure exerted by healthcare personnel, inadequate medical conditions, and lasting physical and psychological consequences.

An investigation published by El País on 29 October 2026 also reported the story of Dionicia Calderón, who was sterilised in 1997 and is now a representative of other women from her community in the Ayacucho region. After learning of the dismissal, Calderón travelled to Lima to challenge the decision alongside other victims. Her experience reflects a judicial struggle that, for many women, has continued throughout much of their adult lives.

The social dimension of the sterilisation programme is central to understanding the severity of the alleged violations. The women involved were often in particularly vulnerable circumstances due to their membership in Indigenous communities, poverty and difficulties accessing public services. Under these conditions, their ability to exercise their reproductive rights freely was undermined by profoundly unequal power relations.

Free, prior and informed consent is a fundamental requirement for any medical procedure. In the case of sterilisation, which permanently affects a person's reproductive capacity, the absence of such consent is particularly serious. The violations reported in Peru affected the rights to health, personal integrity, privacy and reproductive autonomy, with consequences extending to the victims' families and communities.

Law No. 32107 and Its Conflict with International Obligations

The October 2026 dismissal was issued pursuant to Law No. 32107, published in the Peruvian Official Gazette on 9 August 2024. The law regulates the application of crimes against humanity and war crimes under domestic law, invoking the principle of legality and the prohibition of retroactive criminal legislation.

In particular, Article 5 stipulates that no one may be prosecuted, convicted or sanctioned for crimes against humanity or war crimes committed before 1 July 2002, the date on which the Rome Statute entered into force. Article 4 also provides for the application of domestic limitation periods to offences committed before the entry into force of the international instruments referred to in the law.

The provision has drawn strong criticism from human rights organisations, which consider it incompatible with Peru's international obligations. The main point of contention concerns whether limitation periods can be applied to acts that, under their legal classification, constitute crimes against humanity.

In the investigation into forced sterilisation, the Public Prosecutor’s Office acknowledged evidence pointing to a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, but concluded that the legislation in force prevented further criminal proceedings. As highlighted by the Instituto de Defensa Legal, the investigation was therefore dismissed as a result of the application of the 2024 law, rather than because the alleged violations had been found not to have occurred.

The case highlights a tension between domestic law and international standards governing the prosecution of the most serious crimes. The principle of legality is a fundamental safeguard in criminal law; however, its application to international crimes also requires consideration of the rules and obligations that bound states at the time the acts were committed. This is precisely the issue at the heart of the challenge to Law No. 32107.

The case takes on further significance in light of the judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Ramos Durand et al. v. Peru, issued on 25 November 2025 and notified on 5 March 2026.

The proceedings concerned Celia Edith Ramos Durand, who underwent forced sterilisation in July 1997 as part of the implementation of the national family planning programme. She died later that same month as a result of complications arising from the procedure.

The Court recognised the international responsibility of the State for the violations of Celia Ramos Durand's rights and the harm suffered by her family members. It also found that the investigation had not been conducted with due diligence and that the judicial proceedings had been subject to unjustified delays. The Court ordered Peru to adopt reparations measures and continue the necessary investigations to identify and, where the relevant conditions are met, punish those responsible.

The judgment concerns separate proceedings from the broader investigation dismissed in October 2026. Nevertheless, it remains particularly significant, as it confirms the State's international responsibility in connection with the implementation of the programme and the shortcomings in access to justice.

Victims' Response and the Question of Impunity

The Public Prosecutor’s Office's decision prompted an immediate response from organisations representing the women involved. On 28 October, DEMUS, together with other human rights organisations, announced its intention to appeal the decision and ask the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office to overturn the dismissal.

The organisations also stated that they intended to bring the case once again before Inter-American human rights bodies, invoking the obligations arising from the judgment in the Celia Ramos Durand case.

On 3 November 2026, Amnesty International also condemned the closure of the investigation, calling on the Peruvian authorities to overturn the decision and repeal Law No. 32107. The organisation stressed that the victims had already faced decades of judicial obstacles and warned that the application of limitation periods risked further undermining their right to truth, justice and reparation.

The announcement of the appeal leaves open the possibility that the decision may be reviewed. For the time being, however, the closure of the investigation represents a significant development in the long-running legal dispute over forced sterilisation, particularly in view of the potential impact of the interpretation of Law No. 32107 on other proceedings concerning violations committed during the Fujimori government.

The issue also concerns the relationship between justice and the recognition of institutional responsibility. For the women involved, the passage of time has meant living with the consequences of the procedures, facing economic and social difficulties, and taking part in judicial proceedings marked by repeated interruptions. Any eventual determination of responsibility would therefore carry significance beyond the strictly criminal dimension, contributing to the public recognition of the violations and the protection of the dignity of those affected.

The Peruvian case illustrates how difficult it can be to obtain justice for human rights violations committed as part of state policies, particularly when victims belong to socially marginalised groups. The Inter-American Court's judgment represented an important recognition of the State's responsibility, while the dismissal of the domestic investigation has once again brought the limitations of the national justice system to the forefront.

Nearly thirty years after the events, thousands of women continue to demand that their testimonies receive an institutional response. The outcome of the initiatives announced to challenge the dismissal will be crucial in determining whether the Peruvian judicial system can ensure that accountability is pursued in accordance with the country's international obligations.

© Mondo Internazionale – All rights reserved 2026