The Political Constitution of Peru (the “Constitution”) has several articles that directly and indirectly support women’s rights and gender justice. The Constitution recognizes that the supreme purpose of society and the State is to defend and respect the dignity of human beings (Article 1).
The appellant was convicted of femicide for killing a 17-year-old girl when she attempted to defend herself against his efforts to sexually assault her. The appellant argued on appeal that the facts did not support a finding that he was guilty of femicide, petitioned for the re-classification of his crime, and argued that his sentence should have been reduced because he had consumed alcohol before the events that led to the girl’s death.
The appellant brought a constitutional grievance appeal against the resolution issued by the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima regarding the prosecutorial decisions made in her underlying rape case. The Constitutional Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) concluded that the internal-control offices’ dispositions did not sufficiently explain why an investigation against the local prosecutor was not pursued.
A public defender challenged the constitutionality of Article 337 of the Civil Code, which stated that in domestic disputes, a judge could take into consideration the education, custom and conduct of both spouses when dealing with cases of cruelty, dishonest behavior or grave injury. He argued that such a law violated the constitutional right of equality before the law. The Constitutional Tribunal agreed in part and disagreed in part, holding that such considerations could only be examined when dealing with cases of grave injury.
In Exp. No. 03378-2019-PA/TC, the petitioner sought to annul a family court decision, upheld on appeal, which granted protective measures to the petitioner’s partner after she accused him of committing psychological violence against her. The Constitutional Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) explained that the petitioner’s fundamental rights to be heard and to defend himself were not absolute but were limited by the victim’s right to live a life free of violence.
A male schoolteacher was accused of sexually abusing one of his female students, a third-grader, and was removed from his job pending the outcome of his trial. He filed a constitutional challenge to his removal, arguing that it violated his due process right to a presumption of innocence, as enumerated in Article 2 of the Peruvian Political Constitution. The court of first instance agreed with the teacher, ordering the school system to reinstate him. The school system argued that the Law of Teachers ("Ley de Profesorado") allows for termination of a teacher without a conviction.
An employee alleged that her employer fired her because she was pregnant. The employer sought an annulment of the previous decisions. The Supreme Court rejected the employer’s request, acknowledging that although the law requires an employee to notify an employer of their pregnancy in writing, this requirement is not enforceable when the pregnancy is physically evident. The plaintiff sought nullification of her termination under Article 29(e) of the Legislative Decree No. 728, which renders employee terminations based on pregnancy null.
In Labor Appeal No. 15216-2018, the plaintiff informed the defendant, who was her employer, that she was pregnant, at which time her employer granted her temporary leave. Then, she suffered a miscarriage and notified her employer. The defendant terminated the plaintiff not long after that, claiming she had not provided the requisite documentation about her pregnancy or miscarriage. On appeal, the defendant contended that the Superior Court erroneously interpreted and applied the law. The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s arguments.
Law No. 27240 requires employers to provide working mothers a one-hour daily break for breastfeeding. The law states that an employee cannot exchange this benefit for another benefit or compensation and that the employer and employee can agree on the breastfeeding schedule. The law initially granted this right to working mothers until the child reached six months old. In 2001, Law No.
The objective of Law No. 27942 is to prevent and penalize sexual harassment that arises from relationships of authority or dependency. The statute applies to public and private workplaces, educational institutions, police and military institutions, and relationships that are unregulated by labor law. In 2009, Law No.
