Peruvian Penal Code Title I: Crimes Against Life, Body, and Health, Chapter I: Homicide, Article 108-B: Femicide, punishes the crime of femicide with imprisonment of no less than 20 years. femicide means killing a woman because of her identity as a woman, and it applies in several contexts: family violence, coercion, harassment or sexual harassment, abuse of power, trust or any other position or relation which places the agent in a position of authority.

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.

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.

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.

The Superior Tribunal sentenced the defendant of attempted femicide to 11 years imprisonment, barred him from exercising his parental, guardianship, and conservatorship rights, barred him from contacting the victim and her family for five years, and fined him. The Supreme Court did not alter the civil penalty or no-contact order. Still, it annulled the order barring the defendant’s parental, guardianship, and conservatorship rights because that order was unrelated to the facts.

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.

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.

The objective of Law 31155 is to establish mechanisms to prevent, eliminate and sanction the harassment of women in political life to ensure that they can fully and freely exercise their political rights and have the right to equal opportunities. The law provides that compliance with those mechanisms shall be monitored and that the three branches of the national government shall adopt appropriate policies to enforce them.

Law 31030, enacted in 2020, provides that at least 50% of each party’s candidates for election to Congress must be women. For presidential elections, a party’s list of candidates must also include at least one woman. The law further provides that gender parity must also be observed in the number of candidates each political organization presents.

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.