The Peruvian legal system is based on civil law, since it has been built on the basis of systematised and codified laws. Despite this, in the last decades some principles of different systems – mainly common law – have been extrapolated from and assimilated into certain specialised areas of Peruvian law (such as family, commercial, intellectual property, labour, constitutional and criminal law).

Thus, labour and criminal proceedings are currently regulated by procedural laws and regulations that establish orality in the trial, while the written system is being maintained in the other phases.

Although the Constitution recognises the independence of each judge to rule as he or she sees fit, recent efforts have been made to standardise jurisprudential criteria through the issuance of decisions contained in documents called “jurisdictional plenaries”, which serve as a source of law for judges.

In addition, although Peru has a predominantly inquisitorial system, the procedural principles that govern its procedural law allow the application of certain principles that are characteristic of an adversarial system.

The Peruvian judicial system is led by a Supreme Court and is further composed of 29 superior courts, distributed throughout the country, that operate by subject matter and direct most of the proceedings. However, there is an exceptional review (cassation) that allows a dispute to be brought to the level of the Supreme Court of the Republic – which comprises six specialised chambers that preside over constitutional, administrative, criminal and civil matters.

Proceedings regarding constitutional law and human rights can be ultimately decided by the Constitutional Court. This judgment concludes the local stage and, if applicable, enables review before international jurisdictional instances in matters of human rights.

Judicial proceedings are public, except in family or criminal affairs during the investigation phase. In most proceedings, the parties can follow the status of the proceeding by consulting the judiciary’s website.

Trial hearings are public, allowing free public and press access without restrictions – the most important cases are even transmitted live by a range of mass media and by the television channel of the judiciary.

The defence in any type of proceeding may only be carried out by a lawyer who has a valid registration before a professional Bar Association (Article 132 Code of Civil Procedure). A foreign lawyer may not pursue or defend claims before the Peruvian judicial system.

In the first pleading filed before a judge, the lawyer or law firm taking on the case must be explicitly designated; this designation may be changed at any stage of the proceedings. The designated lawyer has general representation, if so authorised by the client (Articles 74 and 80 Code of Civil Procedure).

In certain family proceedings (Article 424.11 Code of Civil of Procedure) and constitutional proceedings (habeas corpus or habeas data), the advice of a lawyer is not required (Articles 31, 40 and 41 Constitutional Code).

There are no restrictions regarding third-party funding of litigation. The parties are free to agree on the conditions under which such litigation funding works, provided that it does not violate Peruvian public policy.

All proceedings can be funded by third parties.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant can be funded.

It is the free decision of the parties whether to agree to this financing.

Types of costs can include attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees and the legal expenses that arise from the litigation.

Any contingency and/or success fee may also be considered within the financing of a proceeding.

There are no restrictions regarding time.

Law 26872 establishes conciliation as an indispensable requirement prior to the filing of a lawsuit of an economic nature, or one regarding available rights, or in family disputes concerning alimony, visiting rights, custody or liquidation of a community of property, among other matters. In the cases described above, conciliation takes place in a private conciliation centre that must be registered and authorised by the Ministry of Justice, which regulates this activity. A request for conciliation is mandatory, but the attendance of the invited party is not mandatory. Nevertheless, non-attendance at the conciliation generates a legal presumption that the facts presented at this proceeding are true. When a lawsuit is filed, the judge verifies whether the request for conciliation was fulfilled, as it is a requirement of the judicial process.

It must be noted that this prior conciliation procedure is not mandatory in the case of arbitration, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Furthermore, the Peruvian Code of Civil Procedure establishes that conciliation can take place before there is a second instance judgment (Article 323) and can be carried out with the judge or directly by the parties. It is not possible to conciliate facts that constitute crimes.

The statute of limitations for a civil suit is determined by the nature of the obligation, and the limitation period is calculated from the day on which the right can be exercised. They are only interrupted when:

• the obligation is recognised;
• notice of default is imputed;
• summons with the claim or other act serving the debtor with notice is executed; or
• compensation is judicially opposed.

The legal terms of statutes of limitations, as established in the Civil Code (Article 2001), are:

• two years for claims regarding the annulment, revocation and compensation for non-contractual liability;
• three years for payments of remuneration for services provided through non-employment relationships;
• seven years for damages caused by a simulated legal act; and
• ten years for personal claims, property matters, rights arising from a judgment and the nullity of a legal act.

Also, there are several cases in which the term of the statute of limitations can be suspended.

The jurisdictional rules that regulate the proceeding are the same for both plaintiffs and defendants and are based on the type of process: civil, labour, administrative or constitutional.

The initial document is the lawsuit itself and it must contain the following elements:

• identification of the judge before whom it is being filed;
• identification of the claimant, indicating personal data and personal address;
• the designation of a domicile for notifications, which can be physical or electronic (this depends on the type of proceeding), also specifying whether a person’s lawyer will be their representative;
• the name and address of the defendant, whether a natural or legal person, since this is the location that will be used for notifications – this may be local or abroad (in which case a special notification order is processed);
• the legal petition and, if applicable, the amount claimed;
• the legal arguments that support the suit – statutes, jurisprudence and/or doctrine;
• a clear presentation of the facts that support the petition; and
• the evidence used to prove the facts invoked.

If the claim is governed by the rules of the written process, the following must be attached: copies of the identity documents and sufficient powers of the representatives or lawyers (if acting on request), and copies of the conciliation request.

Once the lawsuit is filed, the judge proceeds to his or her qualification and analysis, which are subject to the following possible outcomes:

• inadmissibility, indicating which are the specific points of the suit that do not meet the legal requirements to initiate a judicial process and granting a period to rectify those deficiencies;
• a liminary dismissal, which is given when it is immediately considered that there is no basis for the procedural process; or
• if all legal requirements are met, the claim is admitted and served on the other party.

It should be noted that prior to the initial decision of the judge, it is possible to amend the claim. In addition, it is permitted to modify the claim in whole or in part before it is notified to the other party, according to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In Peru, the service of the lawsuit and other resolutions issued in the proceeding are the responsibility of the court. In this regard, a fee must be paid for each procedural act to cover the costs of service. For the first notification or summons to the proceeding, the following rules apply:

• if the domicile is within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, it will send it directly;
• if the domicile is located in the country but in a different jurisdiction, a judge from that area is used to proceed with the notification;
• if the registered address is abroad, the diplomatic service is used so that the Consul proceeds to make the notification; and
• if the domicile is unknown, the judicial decision to initiate the process shall be published in the official newspaper.

The defendant is obliged to indicate a real procedural and electronic address in the area of the court, which will be used for notification purposes, besides an email address and a mobile phone number. In matters that allow orality, only judicial decisions are communicated to the electronic address indicated.

If the defendant has been validly notified at the address where the claim has been filed, and does not respond within the timeframe legally granted, the proceeding continues and those items of the suit that are duly supported are deemed accepted. In that case, the party will be declared as rebellious, in accordance with Article 458 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under this scenario, the final decision will be notified in the newspaper.

However, the rules allow that the defendant may appear during any phase of the proceeding, asserting their rights as from that moment. If the suit has been filed against various defendants and only one responds, then the acts of defence are valid only for this sole person, unless the facts and the applicable law allow otherwise (Article 462 Code of Civil Procedure).

In Peru, the defence of diffuse interests (those whose title does not fall on a determinate person or group) proceeds only for defence of certain environmental, consumer or cultural rights. The Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Regional and Local Governments, the Peasant and Native Communities and non-profit organisations are entities which may file protection claims, as established by Article 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

While the defence of collective interests is not expressly regulated in Peruvian law, claims regarding collective interests derived from consumer protection regulations may be initiated by the Peruvian competition and antitrust authority (INDECOPI), or a non-profit association, aimed at claiming the restitution of rights or compensation for damage caused (Article 131 Consumer Protection Code).

In order to activate the justice system, the parties involved have to pay administrative fees for certain procedural acts. These are calculated based on the amount claimed and are regulated by the Executive Council of the Judiciary on an annual basis.

Professional fees are freely agreed by each party with its lawyers, whether this is a fixed amount, a success fee, or a mixture of both.

In accordance with Peruvian law (Article 636 Code of Civil Procedure), the plaintiff may request that precautionary measures (ie, liens, seizure of property, etc) be issued before the main judicial proceeding is initiated in order to ensure compliance with any future favourable judgment under the condition that the party requesting the measure submits its claim within ten days after its execution. The judge who issues this precautionary measure will be the same who will be responsible for the direction of the main proceedings.

The judge may order an early trial of the process (Article 473 Code of Civil Procedure) and issue a judgment without admitting additional procedure, other than the oral hearing of the parties’ attorneys, in the following cases:

• when it is noted that the controversy is one of law only;
• when, even if there is a dispute over facts, there is no need to present any evidence; or
• where the decision of the court finding that one of the parties was in default of appearance at the commencement of the proceedings has been consented to.

An early trial is not a right of the parties but an exclusive prerogative of the judge, although the parties, by evidencing that some of the above conditions are met, may request one.

Pursuant to Peruvian law, there is no possibility to hear dispositive motions before the trial, except for the obligation to submit a request for conciliation before a specialised conciliation centre. If an agreement is not reached during the conciliation procedure, then the judicial process will be set in motion to resolve the dispute.

Parties not initially considered in a lawsuit are entitled to request their incorporation into the proceeding, as either plaintiffs or defendants, even during the course of a second instance. Thus, according to Article 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whoever considers themselves to be the holder of a substantial legal relationship to which the effects of a judgment must be extended, and considers that for such reason he or she is entitled to sue or be sued in a judicial proceeding, may request to intervene as a joint plaintiff or joint defendant, with the same powers as the original plaintiff or defendant.

Moreover, the omission of a necessary defendant from a proceeding (called a “passive necessary party”) constitutes a defect that is a ground for annulment of said proceeding. Even in the case of civil proceedings regarding available rights, the plaintiff has the duty to invite said necessary parties to an extrajudicial conciliation prior to the filing of the claim. In that scenario, a passive necessary party (defendant) that has been omitted from a lawsuit may request to be included as a party by the judge of the proceeding and demand that the claim be served in order to respond to the claim and exercise its right of defence.

Unlike in the case of omitted defendants, in the case that a person considers himself or herself entitled to act as a plaintiff in a proceeding, he or she may request his or her intervention before the judge in the state in which the proceeding is being held.

Peruvian law also enables a person who considers himself or herself the holder of a right discussed in a judicial proceeding (main exclusionary intervention) to ask the judge for his or her intervention in it, formulating for that purpose his or her suit against the plaintiff and the defendant (Article 99 Code of Civil Procedure). Such a main exclusionary intervention is only admissible before the issuance of the judgment of first instance, and the processing of the request does not suspend the proceeding, but it suspends any issuance of a judgment. The intervening party is considered as one more party to the proceeding and has the same powers as the original parties.

Likewise, a defendant who considers that another person, in addition to himself or herself, or in his or her place, has some obligation or responsibility in the right discussed in the proceeding, may request that person’s incorporation into the process as a civil defendant (Articles 102 and 103 Code of Civil Procedure).

Both the defendant and the plaintiff have the right that, in the event of a successful outcome of the proceeding, the judge orders that the other party reimburse their defence costs. The possibility of establishing a precautionary measure or bond of some kind, at the beginning of the proceeding, is not contemplated to guarantee the reimbursement of said defence costs. However, once the judgment has been passed and the award of costs has been established by the judge, it is possible to request a precautionary measure to ensure its payment.

In the specific case of precautionary measures, one of the requirements established for their granting is that the applicant grant a “counter-caution” to guarantee the damages that the defendant could suffer, which are not limited to defence costs.

In the case of contentious-administrative processes (judicial review), public administration entities are exempt by law from the assumption of the costs and defence costs of the counterparty.

The costs of interim applications/motions are set out annually in a table of fees approved by the judiciary, which are fixed according to the subject and amount of the dispute. Peruvian state entities are exempt from payment of said fees.

The Peruvian legal system does not establish a specific timeframe for ruling on a request for a precautionary measure; the speed of its resolution depends on the procedural burden of the court and the type of proceeding in which said request is made.

It is not possible to request discovery, either in civil cases or in any other judicial process. The evidence is limited to that which is offered by the parties and to evidence that the judge decides must be produced ex officio, expressly and precisely, and it is not possible for the counterparty to request a general production of documents.

It is not possible to obtain discovery from third parties outside the proceeding. Third parties are only required to produce specific documents that belong to or clearly concern or refer to any of the parties (Article 259 Code of Civil Procedure).

As indicated, it is not possible in court proceedings to request discovery. However, this is allowed in an arbitration by agreement of the parties or if the arbitration court so orders.

As a rule of thumb, the evidence is expressly stated in the suit and in the answer to the complaint. However, it is possible that the claimant may request the performance of an anticipated proof at the beginning of the proceeding, justifying the need for certain evidence and the reason why it is necessary to have this evidence prematurely (eg, danger of disappearance of the evidence).

The judge may order the presentation of certain evidence, whenever he or she considers it necessary, before issuing a judgment.

The Peruvian Constitution recognises the fundamental right of every person to keep professional secrecy. It is by virtue of this constitutional mandate that the attorney-client privilege, and the confidentiality of the information accessed by a lawyer in the provision of legal counsel, are protected by the legal system. Indeed, the Organic Law of the Judiciary imposes as a duty of legal counsel the rigorous observation of professional secrecy, since the criminal legislation establishes that the infraction of said obligation constitutes a crime (Article 165 Criminal Code).

There is no difference in the scope of the obligation of professional secrecy between in-house and external lawyers.

In civil proceedings, the only rule allowing a party not to disclose documents, other than discovery, is that the requested evidence does not relate to the object of the proceeding. Additionally, a party may refuse to present specific evidence in cases where such disclosure may affect the constitutional rights of the party.

In all cases, the judge will carry out an admissibility review of the documentary evidence in order to determine whether it complies with all evidentiary principles and whether, among other things, it has not been obtained in violation of constitutional rights (such as the one referred to in Article 165 of the Criminal Code).

In Peru, a precautionary measure can be granted in any type of proceeding, in order to guarantee compliance with the final ruling, provided that the applicant demonstrates that the requested measure meets the following three requirements:

• the likelihood of the right invoked being awarded;
• the danger in any delay; and
• the reasonableness of the measure to guarantee the effectiveness of the final ruling.

In civil proceedings, the applicant is required to grant a real or personal counter-caution, in order to protect the party affected by the precautionary measure regarding any damages and losses caused by its execution. In the case of the constitutional process of amparo, there is no counter-caution due to the conflict having arisen from the alleged violation of fundamental constitutional rights.

It is important to note that in the Peruvian system all hearings regarding precautionary measures are held without the knowledge of the respondent.

Precautionary measures can be classified as follows:

• those that can be requested before the start of the proceeding and those once it is initiated;
• those that alter the status quo and those that do not – the former seek to restore the factual situation or right whose alteration is the substance of the suit, while the latter seek to preserve the factual situation or right invoked in the suit; and
• general and specific – the former (which are not provided for by Peruvian legislation) are intended to ensure the most adequate compliance with the final decision, while specific measures would be liens, seizures and annotations of the suit in the public registries.

A lien consists in the encumbrance of assets or rights of the obligated party, even when they are in the possession of a third party. Among the types of lien that exist are: (i) lien in the form of withholding, in which case the money withheld is deposited in the National Bank by the person obligated to pay or frozen by a financial institution; and (ii) seizure in the form of annotation, in which case the seizure falls on assets registered in public registries, whose annotation is accredited through registration in the same records.

In Peruvian legislation there are no precautionary measures that limit the development of a parallel proceeding since, in that case, if there are related proceedings, one of the proceedings can be consolidated with the other or suspended until the other is resolved.

All precautionary requests have as a requirement that there is some danger in delay which implies that they are urgent per se. In that scenario, the courts allow a period for their evaluation and granting. However, the time for the granting of a precautionary request will depend on the procedural burden of the court before which it has been requested.

As indicated previously, all precautionary measures are granted without knowledge of the respondent (ie, on an ex parte basis).

As mentioned above, in civil proceedings the party requesting a precautionary measure is required to grant a real counter-caution (deposit granted before the National Bank) or a personal one (personal bond), which serves to insure the respondent for any damages and losses generated by the precautionary measure. In that scenario, the counterclaim offered would proceed in two cases: (i) if the superior court revokes the precautionary measure granted by the court; or (ii) in the event of an unfavourable ruling.

It is important to keep in mind that the counter-caution offered by the application for a precautionary measure can be adjusted or even changed by the judge, in order to guarantee the damages that the execution of the precautionary measure could cause.

Precautionary measures are subject to certain limits established in Article 648 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In accordance with this Article, the following are unseizable assets:

• family assets;
• goods for personal use and those that are essential for people’s livelihoods, unless it is a matter of guaranteeing their payment;
• movable assets indispensable for the exercise of a profession, unless it is a matter of guaranteeing their payment;
• the decorative badges, uniforms and weapons of public servants;
• salaries and pensions, up to the limit of five procedural reference units, with the excess attachable up to a third – food obligations are guaranteed, up to the limit of 60% of total income, with the sole deduction of the discounts of the law;
• food pensions; and
• the movable property of religious places of worship.

The precautionary measure of seizure in the form of registration against an asset registered in the name of a third party is available, but only when the applicant has proven that the property belongs to the debtor but is in the name of a third party.

In all cases, the execution of the precautionary measure shall be carried out with the assistance of the public enforcement authorities.

Proceedings in Peru are predominantly written. Orality is recognised as an exception to this rule in the case of labour and criminal proceedings. Notwithstanding, judicial proceedings admit the performance of oral proceedings such as:

• witness statements;
• the statements of the parties;
• oral statements by experts; and
• the oral presentation of the case by the lawyers.

The timing of oral intervention by the parties and their lawyers in the proceeding, as well as by witnesses and experts, is determined at the discretion of the judge, taking into consideration the complexity or size of the case.

In the Peruvian legal system, jury trials for civil cases are not available.

The general rule that governs admission of evidence is that the evidence must be offered in the postulatory briefs setting out: (i) the claim and the response, and (ii) the counterclaim and the response. Subsequently, it is only possible for parties to present evidence regarding new facts linked to the dispute. Additionally, the judge has the power to request evidence ex officio.

The participation of experts in the proceeding is done through the submission of a written expertise which can be requested by one of the parties or also ordered ex officio by the judge. The expert opinions are submitted by the experts at the time of the hearing of evidence, and there is an exceptional ability, when the complexity of the case merits it, to order a special hearing for the exposition of the experts (Article 265 Code of Civil Procedure).

The only oral proceedings with access to the public within a civil proceeding are the hearings of the oral presentations of the parties’ attorneys, in which case the statements made are not transcribed. In this scenario, some of these public oral statements may in certain cases be broadcast on television.

On the other hand, the other oral actions carried out in the proceeding (expert reports, etc) are not public, and these oral statements must be transcribed at the time of the diligence.

Exceptionally, the parties may request the judge that the oral reports of lawyers be heard without the presence of the public – this would be in those cases in which their participation could affect the rights of third parties (eg, hearings in cases that involve minors).

Third parties may have access to the judicial file once the proceeding has been completed and its archiving has been ordered.

According to Peruvian national legislation, the judge is the “chair of the proceeding” and, as such, administers all proceedings. In that sense, he or she is competent to specify the dates for the performance of the different actions to be carried out in the judicial process, direct the hearings, require ex officio the production of evidence, and examine the parties, witnesses, experts and lawyers.

As a general rule, in the civil process, the final decision of the judge is issued after the oral reports of the parties’ lawyers have been heard. However, exceptionally in the criminal and labour fields, some decisions may be issued during the oral hearing. Thus, in the investigation stage within a criminal proceeding, decisions may be issued at the end of the respective oral hearing. Also, in a labour proceeding, the final ruling may be issued at the end of the hearing of the parties.

The Peruvian national legislation establishes maximum time periods for the resolution and conclusion of legal proceedings (Article 124 Code of Civil Procedure). However, in practice, given the procedural burden of the different jurisdictional bodies, these time periods are usually exceeded.

In the event that a settlement occurs within a judicial process, the judge is required to check the lawfulness of the settlement agreement – ie, regarding available rights, it should not affect public order and any benefits have to be reciprocal. There can be several scenarios:

• if the parties reach a comprehensive agreement that covers all aspects of the claim to the satisfaction of the parties and there is no impact on constitutional rights, the agreement is approved and acquires the status of res judicata;
• if the agreement is partial – that is, itrefers only to certain aspects of the claim – it is partially approved regarding the matters agreed and the proceeding will continue for the remaining matters; and
• if there is a final ruling, any agreement regarding the substantial matters ruled would not be admitted, with the exception of the rules for the execution of said final ruling.

Finally, in Peru it is possible to reach extrajudicial settlements (outside a judicial process) without the necessity of their being approved by a judge. In such cases, the settlement acquires the status of res judicata.

Individuals may agree to keep certain facts or agreements confidential and determine the penalties in case of non-compliance; however, in a judicial dispute, the judge may request the publication of the agreement, notwithstanding a party’s request to restrict confidentiality to the parties involved in the proceeding.

A private agreement is considered an enforceable title and, if the agreement is presented before a judge, it has the authority of a ruling. This means that a judge is able to enforce all matters covered by the settlement agreement.

The execution process is regulated by Articles 688.8 and 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as follows:

• when the suit is received, the judge requires the immediate fulfilment of the agreed terms;
• the respondent may challenge compliance only on condition of the nullity or falsity of the agreement, the termination of the obligation, or that it cannot be fulfilled or is not determined;
• a brief period of three days is conferred for a challenge or opposition to be formulated by the plaintiff, after which a judgment is issued, which can be appealed; and
• the execution procedure is initiated only when there is a final ruling by which the suit for execution is accepted and the agreed payment, refund of rights, delivery of goods or any agreed aspect can be requested.

Since the settlement is a mutual agreement, the parties may voluntarily agree to its termination but, unilaterally, are only able to ask for its enforcement judicially. However, the court can declare the settlement void or ineffective (eg, when it affects non-disposable rights).

Through the final ruling, the judge resolves the dispute and concludes the proceeding. This ruling has to be express, precise and contain a reasoned decision, which may contain the following, according to the merits of the dispute:

• a declaration on the existence of a right;
• an order for monetary compensation (payment of monetary obligations);
• an order to carry out or execute an action;
• an order to immediately carry out or execute an action;
• an order to rectify a previous act; and
• an order for the collection of court costs and fees; and taxes, if applicable.

In Peru’s legal system, a claim for damages is followed in accordance with the general rules of civil liability established in the Civil Code, since such liability in turn may have a contractual or tortious origin.

In both regimes, damage is classified into:

• patrimonial damage (ie, one that damages rights of an economic nature), which is classified in turn into:
1. actual damage, referring to any loss that ensues in the injured party’s estate, and
2. loss of profits, relating to expected profits that have not been or will no longer be realised by the injured party; and
• extra-patrimonial damage, which is classified in turn into:
1. moral damage, defined as that situation of affliction, suffering or pain that is caused to the person from the injury of his or her feelings; and
2. damage to the person, which occurs when the physical integrity of the subject, his or her psychological wellbeing or even his or her life project is harmed.

Regarding the limitation of liability, damages can only be exonerated or limited in cases of slight fault; consequently, exemptions or limitations of liability in the case of wilful misconduct or gross negligence are considered as null and void agreements.

In the Peruvian system there are no punitive damages, nor consequential or indirect damages. However, parties may agree on liquidated damages.

The rules for the accrual of interest are the same, regardless of whether there is a judicial process or not; therefore, those rules do not distinguish between the different stages of the proceeding (before or after the trial). The types of interest rate applicable in Peru are as follows:

• compensatory interest is remuneration or consideration that is received for the temporary transfer of capital constituted by money or fungible goods, as long as default does not occur; and
• penalty or default interest (late payment) is intended to compensate delay in payment, and its application arises by legal mandate without the need for an agreement.

The maximum compensatory interest and default interest rates are established by the Central Reserve Bank, except for financial institutions, for which there is no limit.

National judgments have the status of executive title and are executed through a single enforcement process, in accordance with the provisions of Article 688 et seq of the Civil Procedure Code.

In this case, it is sufficient that the plaintiff presents the title and that it contains a certain, express and enforceable obligation; if it is an obligation to give money, this amount must be liquid or liquidable. Consequently, the judge rules an execution mandate, which can only be contradicted by the following: (i) compliance with the obligation; and (ii) the termination of the obligation. Notwithstanding the limited conditions by which to contradict the execution of a final ruling, this process can be evaluated even in the Supreme Court.

Before requesting the enforcement of a foreign judgment, it must have been previously recognised by Peru’s legal system. For this, the applicant requests recognition before a judge through a non-contentious process in which there is a presumption of reciprocity for its execution unless the party subject to the enforcement proves otherwise.

Once the final ruling is recognised as such, its execution proceeds as a national one, which must be enforced according to the Peruvian legal system as previously described.

The Political Constitution of Peru establishes as a fundamental guarantee of effective judicial protection and due process the plurality of instances in judicial proceedings (this also includes administrative proceedings). Hence, any judicial process contemplates the possibility of challenging the decision issued by the court of first instance via appeal.

In those judicial proceedings in which a higher court of justice is in charge of the second instance, it is also possible to lodge an appeal for the purpose of having the Supreme Court of the Republic review whether there were any violations of due process and whether the law was correctly applied.

In constitutional proceedings, against the second instance ruling issued by the constitutional superior court, it is only possible that the plaintiff may file a constitutional grievance appeal that will be resolved by the Constitutional Court.

It is possible to appeal the resolutions issued by the judge, other than the judgment, by means of the following mechanisms (Article 121 Code of Civil Procedure): (i) resolutions that drive the process (known as decrees); and (ii) an appeal against the “court orders”, which resolves relevant procedural issues outside the merits of the dispute.

As a rule of thumb, an appeal is filed before the same court that issued the judgment or resolution so that it rules on its admissibility and elevates it to the corresponding superior court. In general terms, the admissibility and provenance requirements for filing an appeal, according to the process, are:

• submission within the statute of limitation;
• payment of the fee (with the exception of constitutional proceedings and those for which “judicial assistance” has been provided); and
• a statement of precisely what rights have been violated by the act appealed.

The civil process in Peru is mainly written. This means that the filing of the appeal is made once the “affected” party receives notification of the decision to appeal. From that moment, the statute of limitation to file the appeal is calculated, which must also be formulated in writing. As mentioned above, the statute of limitation may vary depending on the process, as well as the judicial act subject to appeal.

The second instance can only rule on those matters that have been the subject of express challenge by the appellant. In the case of judgments, the higher instance reviews the facts and the rights argued by the parties, as well as the evidential means offered in the first instance, and those parties are able to make an oral report to state their position. Exceptionally, the parties may apply for the admission of evidence relating to new facts related to the dispute, notwithstanding that the court may request additional ex officio evidence.

Finally, the Peruvian legal system is governed by the principle of iura novit curia, so that both the parties and the court can specify their positions and judgments, respectively, attending to legal bases not invoked by the parties initially.

Peruvian legislation does not allow judges to establish conditions of any kind for filing an appeal. Judges should limit themselves to verifying compliance with the requirements established by the legislation for each proceeding, in order to determine the admission and provenance of an appeal.

The second instance is empowered to confirm, revoke or annul the decision that is subject to appeal. In the case of revocation, the judge modifies the decision by resolving on the merits of the dispute in a different way from that of the appealed decision. In the case of annulment, it orders the court of first instance to issue a new ruling, establishing guidelines for this.

The expenses related to the litigation are initially assumed by each of the parties. Subsequently, when issuing judgment, the judge orders the losing party to assume the expenses incurred by the other party.

Peruvian law distinguishes between: (i) costs that consist of judicial fees, the fees of judicial assistance bodies and other judicial expenses incurred during the process; and (ii) costs that are the fees of the attorneys of the winning party, plus 5% to the Bar Association of the respective judicial district.

If several claims have been discussed in the process, the judgment affects only those received in favour of the winner.

If the losing party does not agree with the calculation of the court costs and fees, it can file an appeal to the higher instance to review the decision.

The costs are 100% reimbursed by the losing party. As for the amount of the attorney’s fees of the winning party, there must be a breakdown of costs at the end of the judicial process in which the reasonableness of the same is determined depending on the complexity of the work performed. In order to make the collection of costs effective, it is essential that the winning party submit to the court by a certain date the documents that record the payments made to the lawyers, as well as the corresponding taxes.

If the court costs and fees are not reimbursed immediately by the losing party, the legal interest rate is applied until their effective payment.

Arbitration has a jurisdictional nature according to Peruvian Constitution and is considered an alternative route for the resolution of disputes; it is even applicable to public entities and can be agreed in accordance with rules of national or international courts (Articles 63 and 139.1 Constitution). This route, managed by individuals and private institutions, is widely used; it is regulated by the Peruvian Arbitration Law, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The Justice Department issued a law that promotes ADR – conciliation, arbitration and mediation (Law 26872) –and performs free services nationwide for any individuals who wish to resort to government centres.

The procedural legislation contains a direction to use ADR in processes before resorting to the civil or labour and administrative courts; however, since it is not obligatory and lacks a sanction, it is not a widely used mechanism.

If arbitration is expressly agreed, a party cannot subsequently refuse to participate in said jurisdictional mechanism.

The Justice Department has small facilities in certain cities of the country to promote ADR. On a private level, since the summons to a conciliation meeting are mandatory in certain cases, there are a variety of National Conciliation Centres that are regulated by the Justice Department.

Regarding arbitration, it can be carried out independently or through specialised private centres, operating on the basis of the prior arbitration agreement, if any. The best known, and those that require the prior registration of the arbitrators, are the Lima Chamber of Commerce (CCL), the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM), and the Centre for Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts (CARC) at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP).

In Peru, the only law applicable to the development and conduct of national and international arbitration is Legislative Decree No 1071, which indicates that the parties may, by mutual agreement, establish the rules they deem appropriate or subject the dispute to the regulations of the arbitration institutions that they consider convenient.

The rules that can be submitted for the conduct of the proceeding are found in the Rules of Practice of the International Bar Association (IBA) or the Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (Prague Rules).

In the absence of agreement of the parties, the arbitrators have the power to apply the rules they deem appropriate to the particular case. In that case, the arbitrators resort only to the principles of arbitration or to the customs in the matter, but in no case do they resort to civil procedural legislation.

In the matter of recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards, the Peruvian legal system is governed by the provisions of both Legislative Decree No 1071 and the Code of Civil Procedure.

The only limitation on which disputes may be submitted to arbitration is that they must deal with rights that are freely disposable. In that sense, in the Peruvian system, contracts with the state are arbitrated (in which case it is mandatory), as well as disputes between consumers and their suppliers (consumer arbitration). However, this arbitration has its own regulation in the Peruvian system, so it is not governed by Legislative Decree No 1071.

In Peru, an appeal for annulment is the only means to challenge an arbitration award, which is regulated in Legislative Decree No 1071 and some “jurisdictional plenaries”, which make clear the issues related to an appeal’s submission.

In accordance with this law, an appeal’s validity is evaluated through the annulment process in accordance with the grounds established but without evaluating the merits of the dispute or reviewing the criteria, motivations or interpretations adopted by the arbitral tribunal. Moreover, the law prohibits judges, who are responsible for assessing the appeal for annulment, from ruling on the merits of a dispute decided in an arbitration award, subjecting them to liability otherwise.

The grounds for requesting the annulment of an arbitration award are limited to the following conditions, in accordance with Article 63 of Legislative Decree No 1071:

(i) nonexistence, nullity or voidability of the arbitration agreement;

(ii) a party was not duly notified of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or was not able for any other reason to exercise his or her rights (right of defence of the parties);

(iii) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration proceedings was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties;

(iv) the resolution of a dispute was not submitted to the arbitrators’ decision (extra petita);

(v) the resolution of non-arbitrable matters;

(vi) the subject of the dispute is not subject to arbitration or is contrary to international public order; and

(vii) the arbitration award was issued after the deadline.

In cases (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above, they only constitute grounds for annulment when they have been the subject of a claim in the arbitration process.

However, the submission of this suit must be carried out within a 20-day period, counted from the day of notification of the arbitration award or the resolution that resolves the requests for rectification, interpretation, integration or exclusion. For this, the plaintiff must expressly and clearly indicate the grounds invoked, duly proven, since the evidence is limited to the offer of documentary evidence.

Once the appeal for annulment is resolved, the parties may file an extraordinary appeal (cassation) against said judgment with the Supreme Court. This exceptional proceeding is not intended to be a challenge of the substance of the dispute, but only a review of whether the judgment was issued according to the current procedures and legislation.

Although an appeal for annulment constitutes the only means to challenge an arbitration award, sometimes such an award is subject to a Constitutional Rights Action, in order to evaluate whether there has been a violation of constitutional rights. However, the Constitutional Court has established in the Minera María Julia precedent (No 00142-2011-AA), the exceptional nature of an arbitration protection process (amparo arbitral), limiting it to the following three conditions:

(i) when the direct violation of the precedents established by the Constitutional Court is invoked;

(ii) when in the arbitration award diffuse control has been exercised over a rule declared constitutional by the Constitutional Court or the judiciary, invoking the violation of Article VI of the Preliminary Title of the Constitutional Procedural Code; and

(iii) when the Constitutional Rights Action is filed by a third party that is not part of the arbitration agreement and is based on the direct and manifest violation of its constitutional rights as a result of the award pronounced in said arbitration, unless said third party falls within the assumption of the Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 1071.

Conditions (i) and (ii) above only apply if they were the subject of an express claim before the arbitral tribunal and if that claim was dismissed by it.

In the case of the execution of domestic awards, the judiciary issues the enforcement mandate with the arbitration award and, if applicable, the resolutions that resolve the requests for rectification, interpretation, integration or exclusion of the award. Against this mandate, the respondent can only object by proving (i) the fulfilment of the obligation, or (ii) the suspension of the execution by virtue of the annulment of the same award. If the opposition is upheld, an appeal against these proceeds.

In the case of the enforcement of a foreign award, it needs to have been previously recognised – that is, the state must have granted it enforceability within the national territory. The recognition of an arbitration award is regulated in Articles 75 and 76 of Legislative Decree No 1071, according to which the treaty that will be applicable for its recognition or the national norm is applied, whichever is the more favourable to the plaintiff. In the case of applying the national norm, recognition is requested before a judge in a non-contentious proceeding.

Once the foreign arbitration award is recognised, it is executed in accordance with the treaty that is applicable for its execution. Thus, if the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, adopted in New York in 1958, is applicable, the rules for the execution of domestic awards could be applied, if these are more favourable.

Pursuant to a constitutional reform carried out as a result of a public referendum, the rules regarding the election, evaluation, ratification and dismissal of judges in Peru were modified, establishing that a new constitutional body called the Junta Nacional de Justicia (Peruvian National Board of Justice) will be in charge of these functions.

According to its regulations (Law No 30904 and Law No 30916), this new bureau is in charge of appointing, after a public contest of merits and personal evaluation, judges and prosecutors of all levels (including the Supreme Court and supreme prosecutors). Pursuant to these regulations, the National Board of Justice will carry out the impartial evaluation of the performance of judges and prosecutors, at all levels, every three and a half years, and those who are not ratified or who are dismissed will not be able to re-enter the judiciary and the public ministry.

Also, as a result of the current global health crisis, both regulatory measures as well as judicial reforms have been implemented by the government. Regarding the latter, these are primarily intended to allow proceedings to be carried out virtually. All these reforms are being gradually implemented and used.

The pandemic has had a significant impact on the conduct of judicial proceedings in Peru. In order to contain and prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Peruvian government issued a series of provisions (Supreme Decree No 044-2020-PCM on 15 March 2020) which ordered strict shelter-in-place measures within the whole territory and determined, among other things, the restriction of all types of non-immediately-essential activities, including legal activities, which entailed the suspension of all judicial deadlines.

Under these circumstances, the government and the judiciary established several regulations intended to allow judicial personnel to work remotely, as well as the continuation of ongoing proceedings virtually. In this regard, mechanisms for monitoring and developing proceedings have been enabled by holding virtual hearings, by allowing the filing of writs through on-line platforms or email, as well as by improving the creation of electronic dockets, among others.

However, through Administrative Resolution No 179-2020-CE-PJ, the judiciary ordered the restart of the judicial deadlines as from 16 July 2020. Since this date, the judicial power has arranged the development of judicial proceedings through virtual means and, exceptionally, in person, which includes the filing of writs and briefs through an on-line platform and emails, and the development of virtual hearings. To date, although on-site activities have not yet been fully resumed, several courts have already resumed on-site activities, which has improved the efficiency of the judicial process.