Peru’s legal system is based on civil law, which means it primarily relies on comprehensive written codes and statutes rather than judicial precedents. The litigation model is adversarial, where opposing parties present their cases while judges serve as impartial arbiters who resolve disputes without actively investigating cases themselves. This system allows each side to present their strongest arguments while the judge maintains neutrality.

Peruvian legal proceedings combine both written submissions and oral arguments. While criminal cases have traditionally featured oral hearings during the trial phase, civil proceedings are now adopting more oral elements too. This new civil orality model helps consolidate multiple procedural steps after the initial filing stage is complete, making the process more efficient and accessible. This balanced approach aims to preserve thorough documentation while promoting direct interaction between all parties involved.

Peru’s judicial system is organised into judicial districts, each containing courts that handle cases at both first and second-instance levels. When specific requirements are met, disputes may reach the Supreme Court of Justice, which serves as the highest court in the country. This hierarchical structure ensures that cases can be reviewed at different levels, providing opportunities to correct potential errors in judicial decisions.

The courts operate by specialism, with dedicated courts for civil, criminal, constitutional, administrative and labour matters. However, due to budget and organisational constraints, civil courts often handle constitutional, administrative or labour cases when specialised courts are not available, while mixed courts may operate in some areas to consolidate functions. The time to reach trial varies considerably, typically ranging from three months to one year if there are no notification issues or deliberate delay tactics by opposing parties, with timeframes also depending on the nature of the dispute and the procedural path followed.

Court files in active proceedings in Peru are confidential and accessible only to the parties involved in the case. Once legal proceedings have concluded, these files are sent to archives where they become available for public review. This system balances the privacy needs of ongoing cases with the principle of transparency after resolution.

Currently, Peru offers a digital platform for checking the status of court cases, with the exception of criminal litigation, which remains confidential. Anyone can access this information by providing basic details such as the judicial district, court level, specialism, year, case number and the name of one of the parties. This platform enhances transparency while maintaining appropriate privacy protections, allowing citizens to track case progress without compromising sensitive information in active proceedings.

To practise law and represent clients in Peruvian courts, individuals must hold a professional law degree issued by a Peruvian university or have a foreign law degree validated by the National Superintendency of Higher Education (SUNEDU) in Peru. This educational requirement ensures that all legal representatives have appropriate training in the Peruvian legal system and applicable laws before appearing in court.

Additionally, lawyers must register with one of Peru’s bar associations and maintain active membership status to practice. Foreign lawyers cannot conduct cases in Peruvian courts unless they complete the degree validation process through SUNEDU and join a local bar association. These requirements establish professional standards and ethical oversight for all legal practitioners appearing before Peruvian courts, regardless of their country of origin.

Third-party litigation funding is permitted in Peru as there are no specific laws prohibiting this practice. This permission stems from Article 2, Section 24, Paragraph A of the Peruvian Constitution, which establishes that no one is obligated to do what the law does not mandate, nor prevented from doing what it does not prohibit. This constitutional principle allows the practice to exist in the absence of specific regulations.

While third-party funding has been more commonly observed in arbitration proceedings, it is expanding into traditional litigation as well. Companies like Loopa Finance already operate in Peru, offering litigation financing services to parties seeking financial support for their legal proceedings. Currently, there are no specific restrictions governing third-party funding in Peru, allowing this practice to develop according to market needs and general legal principles.

In Peru, third-party funding is available for any lawsuit type due to the absence of specific limiting regulations, following the principle that what is not prohibited is permitted. Funders typically focus on high-value commercial disputes with significant return potential.

Preferred cases include complex commercial litigation, class actions, intellectual property disputes and high-value arbitrations with substantial damages claims that make funding financially viable. While still developing in Peru’s legal market, companies like Loopa Finance operate primarily with cases showing strong legal merits and significant potential recovery.

In Peru, third-party funding is available to both plaintiffs and defendants without legal restrictions, though plaintiffs seeking monetary claims receive funding more frequently due to straightforward recovery potential.

Defendants can access funding particularly for counterclaims or to prevent significant financial loss, typically structured as loans or insurance-like products rather than contingency arrangements. As Peru’s funding market develops, more diverse models may emerge addressing specific needs of both parties in various litigation types.

In Peru, no legally established funding limits exist for third-party litigation financing. Thresholds are set by individual funding companies based on commercial viability, focusing on cases with sufficient potential recoveries to justify investment costs.

Funders like Loopa Finance typically prefer cases with anticipated damages in hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Funding amounts are negotiated based on legal costs, complexity and recovery potential. The largely unregulated environment allows funders to establish their own criteria based on their risk assessment and business models.

In Peru, third-party funders typically finance necessary litigation expenses including attorneys’ fees, court costs, expert witness fees, evidence gathering and document production expenses. Some also cover specialised services such as forensic accounting, technical analysis or translations for international disputes.

Arrangements are customised to each case and may include appeal processes. However, funders generally do not cover costs unrelated to direct claim prosecution or adverse costs if the funded party loses, unless specifically negotiated. All covered costs are detailed in the funding agreement negotiated between parties based on specific case requirements.

In Peru, contingency fees are permitted as no legislation prohibits them, following the principle that what is not expressly forbidden is allowed. Attorneys and clients can negotiate fee structures where payment depends wholly or partially on case outcomes.

These arrangements remain subject to contractual principles and bar association ethical requirements. The legal system establishes no specific caps on contingency fee percentages, leaving these to private agreements. This flexibility allows attorneys to adapt fee structures to different cases and client needs, potentially increasing legal service access for those unable to afford traditional hourly rates.

In Peru, no legal time limits exist for securing third-party litigation funding. Parties can arrange funding at any stage from pre-filing through appeals, with no statutory deadlines for funding agreements. This allows litigants to seek financial support whenever needed throughout legal proceedings.

Practical considerations typically drive timing decisions. Funders prefer early case evaluation to assess risks and returns before significant costs accrue. Procedural deadlines may create practical time constraints, especially for time-sensitive expenses. Though no formal deadlines exist, parties should approach funders with sufficient lead time before major litigation expenses arise.

In Peru, matters involving freely disposable rights require mandatory extrajudicial conciliation before filing lawsuits. Courts reject lawsuits where this procedure has not been completed. This preliminary step promotes settlement and reduces court caseloads.

No obligation exists for defendants to respond to pre-litigation demand letters. However, potential defendants intending to file counterclaims must participate in conciliation and outline these claims during proceedings. This ensures all claims are addressed during mandatory conciliation, providing opportunity to resolve disputes before formal litigation.

In Peru’s Civil Code, limitation periods vary by claim type: 15 years for alimony actions; ten years for personal/real actions, court judgment claims and legal act nullity; seven years for simulated act damages; three years for non-employment service claims; and two years for voidability actions, revocation, non-contractual liability, and actions against incapacitated persons’ representatives.

Periods begin when actions become exercisable and continue against successors. Suspension occurs with restricted capacity persons, married couples under community property, domestic partnerships, parent–child relationships and when claims cannot be brought before Peruvian courts. Interruption happens through obligation acknowledgement, payment demands, lawsuit service or judicial claims, with periods restarting after legal proceedings from the final judgment’s enforceable date.

In Peru, jurisdiction varies by defendant type and claim nature. For natural persons, the competent court is generally the defendant’s domicile court, with any domicile usable when multiple exist. For unknown domiciles, jurisdiction lies where defendants are found or at the plaintiff’s domicile. For foreign-domiciled defendants, their last known Peruvian domicile court applies.

For legal entities, jurisdiction typically belongs to their headquarters court. With branches elsewhere, plaintiffs may choose headquarters or branch locations if disputed facts occurred there or claims would be executed there. Special rules apply for inheritance (deceased’s last domicile), property (registration court), and other matters where plaintiffs may choose between defendant’s domicile court or other legally specified courts based on relevant connecting factors.

In Peru, lawsuits begin with written complaints filed to appropriate courts containing required elements: court identification, party information, facts, legal grounds, relief sought and evidence. Both plaintiff and attorney must sign, with supporting documents attached.

Amendments are permitted before defendant service. After service, amendments become restricted but remain possible for corrections, clarifications or closely related claims that do not substantially alter the original petition, if made before the pleading stage concludes. Courts have discretion regarding amendments based on timing, potential prejudice and relevance to original claims.

In Peru, service of process is the court’s responsibility, not the plaintiff’s. After filing and admission, court clerks or certified personnel handle notifications, primarily through personal delivery to defendants’ domiciles or workplaces, providing complaint copies, supporting documents and court resolutions.

The system now includes electronic notifications for registered parties. For unfindable defendants, substitute service is allowed through relatives, employees or public notices. For defendants outside Peru, courts use international co-operation mechanisms such as the Hague Convention or bilateral agreements. Without specific treaties, service occurs through diplomatic channels via Peruvian consulates or letters rogatory to foreign judicial authorities.

In Peru, when properly served defendants fail to respond within legal timeframes (five to 30 days depending on procedure), they are declared in default by court resolution. This does not automatically mean case loss but creates significant procedural disadvantages.

Courts proceed without defaulting defendants’ participation. Defendants lose opportunities to present evidence or arguments, though plaintiffs must still prove their cases. Some plaintiff allegations may be presumed true in certain procedures, though this remains rebuttable. Defaulting defendants can join proceedings later but must accept the process as is. Courts continue to notify defaulting defendants of major procedural acts and final judgments, maintaining their right to be informed about cases against them.

Peru permits collective actions through diffuse interest claims (protecting indivisible rights of undetermined groups) and collective interest claims (protecting divisible rights of determinable groups with common situations). These can be filed by the Public Ministry, governments and authorised associations.

The system follows an opt-in approach that requires parties to join proceedings to benefit from judgments. Standing is limited to specific entities predetermined by law. Peru lacks a unified class action framework despite expanded regulations in specialised areas. Judgments typically benefit only participants, though diffuse interest rulings may have broader effects due to their indivisible nature.

In Peru, no explicit legal requirement mandates attorneys to provide litigation cost estimates. Fee and cost relationships are governed by contracts and bar association ethical guidelines rather than statutory provisions.

While not legally required, providing cost estimates is considered good professional practice. Attorneys typically inform clients about fee structures, court fees, expert costs and other expenses, generally documenting these in engagement letters or service contracts. The lack of formal requirements means cost estimate detail varies significantly among practitioners, with bar associations serving as the primary regulators of professional conduct in this area.

In Peru, interim applications (precautionary measures) can be made before substantive hearings or during proceedings. These provide temporary remedies including asset freezing, property seizure, injunctions, judicial administrator appointments and lawsuit annotations in registries.

Applicants must demonstrate a plausible legal claim, danger in delay showing irreparable harm risk, and adequate security for potential damages if measures are later found unjustified. Courts may grant ex parte orders in urgent cases, though affected parties retain the right to challenge measures once notified.

In Peru, parties can seek early resolution through several mechanisms. Procedural defences allow defendants to challenge defects or jurisdictional issues (lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, standing, res judicata, limitations). These must be filed when answering complaints and are resolved in preliminary hearings.

The system permits summary judgment (“conclusión anticipada del proceso”) when cases lack merit, parties settle, plaintiffs abandon cases or courts lack jurisdiction. For striking claims, moving parties must demonstrate claims lack legal foundation or essential procedural requirements. These mechanisms promote judicial efficiency while protecting due process rights through proper notification and response opportunities.

In Peru’s civil procedure system, several motions can terminate proceedings before trial. Most common are preliminary objections challenging procedural aspects (jurisdiction, standing, statute of limitations, res judicata, litispendence), which can lead to early dismissal without examining merits.

Other dispositive motions include termination without judgment (abandonment after four months of inactivity, claim withdrawal, settlements), summary judgment when claims lack legal basis or evidence, and requests for rulings on pure legal questions when facts are undisputed. These motions must typically be filed during pleading stages or preliminary hearings, with courts resolving them before proceeding to evidentiary and trial phases.

In Peru, interested parties not originally named may join lawsuits through voluntary intervention (self-initiated) or forced intervention (requested by parties or court-ordered).

The system recognises three types: “intervención coadyuvante” (supporting either party when affected); “intervención litisconsorcial” (joining as co-party when claiming disputed rights); and “intervención excluyente” (claiming rights incompatible with both original parties). Parties must file requests establishing legitimate interest, which may be challenged before courts decide, ideally before pleading concludes.

In Peru, defendants cannot request plaintiff security for potential costs, unlike some common law jurisdictions. Financial guarantees cannot be demanded before proceeding with cases.

Limited exceptions exist: plaintiffs requesting precautionary measures must provide bonds for potential damages, and foreign plaintiffs without Peruvian assets may sometimes need security (rarely applied). This approach preserves court access regardless of financial capacity, with costs addressed through post-judgment allocation where losing parties may reimburse prevailing parties.

In Peru, interim application costs are incorporated into overall proceeding costs, not assessed separately. These expenses are treated as part of broader litigation costs allocated at case conclusion, typically following the “loser pays” principle.

Parties requesting interim measures must provide bonds covering potential damages if measures are later found unjustified, with amounts determined by judges based on the measure’s nature and impact. While specific filing fees do not exist, the judicial fee schedule may establish administrative costs for certain motions. Courts can impose costs for frivolous applications, though exercised carefully to balance access to remedies with deterrence of abusive tactics.

In Peru, court resolution timeframes vary by request type and workload. The Civil Procedure Code sets standard motions at five to ten business days and complex applications at 15 to 20 business days, though high caseloads often extend these to weeks or months.

Urgent treatment mechanisms exist when delay would cause irreparable harm. Preliminary injunctions can be decided within 24 to 48 hours in extreme cases. Constitutional proceedings have accelerated timeframes. To request urgent treatment, parties must indicate urgency, explain why regular timeframes are inadequate and provide evidence of potential harm from delay.

In Peru, common law discovery is not available. The system employs limited evidence gathering, with parties submitting evidence with initial pleadings and courts controlling admission.

Document production is restricted. Parties can request specific documents when demonstrating existence, relevance and opponent possession. Courts can order third-party production when relevant. Witness testimony occurs during trial, with questioning conducted by judges based on party-proposed questions. Requests must be specific and connected to disputed facts, prohibiting fishing expeditions. This judge-centred approach balances evidence needs with efficiency.

In Peru, obtaining evidence from non-parties occurs through court-controlled processes. For documents, litigants file court requests demonstrating relevance and specifying content precisely. For testimony, parties identify witnesses and explain relevance, with courts issuing summons.

Third parties must comply with court orders, subject to objections based on privilege, trade secrets or self-incrimination. Non-compliance may result in fines or coercive measures. Unlike direct attorney discovery, all third-party evidence gathering requires judicial intervention, maintaining court oversight throughout the process.

In Peru, evidence gathering differs from common law discovery. Peru employs a limited, court-controlled process where parties submit evidence supporting their positions, without automatic disclosure obligations.

Mandatory disclosures with initial pleadings vary by case type: commercial disputes require contracts; property cases need title documents; family matters need certificates. Additional production occurs through targeted requests for specific, relevant documents that demonstrably exist. Requesting parties must identify documents precisely and explain relevance. This restrictive approach balances evidence needs with efficiency while avoiding fishing expeditions, prioritising judicial economy and evidence within parties’ possession.

In Peru, parties must attach all documentary evidence to initial pleadings (“front-loading”). The Civil Procedure Code recognises documents, witness testimony, expert opinions, judicial inspections and party statements as evidence forms.

Courts evaluate relevance and admissibility in admission hearings. Unavailable documents require court-approved targeted requests. Judges lead witness questioning in formal hearings. Experts are typically court-appointed neutrals. Judicial inspections examine relevant places or objects. Judges play active roles, focusing on establishing facts rather than relying on adversarial interactions.

In Peru, legal privilege exists through professional secrecy, protected constitutionally and in various codes, covering confidential attorney–client communications and litigation work product.

The system partially distinguishes between external and in-house counsel. External attorneys receive robust protection, while in-house counsel communications have limitations when in business rather than legal capacities. Protection depends on communication purpose – legal advice (protected) versus business advice (potentially unprotected). The claiming party bears the burden of proof, with courts able to review disputed documents in camera.

Beyond legal privilege, Peru recognises several disclosure exemptions: state secrets (national security); trade secrets (when disclosure harms commercial interests); personal data protection; banking secrecy; and professional confidentiality (doctors, journalists, religious ministers).

Parties may refuse disclosure for irrelevant documents, burdensome requests or legally destroyed documents. The opposing party must prove exemption applies, with courts able to review contested documents privately.

In Peru, injunctive relief requires demonstrating a plausible legal right, danger in delay showing irreparable harm risk, and proportionality. Measures can be granted before or during lawsuits.

Available forms include asset freezing, litigation annotations in public registries, temporary prohibitions or requirements, and judicial administrators for disputed assets. Anti-suit injunctions are not recognised, though courts can assert exclusive jurisdiction through declaratory judgments. All measures require security to cover potential damages if later found unjustified.

In Peru, urgent circumstances allow expedited relief within 24 to 48 hours when irreparable harm is imminent. Ex parte applications without notice are permitted when notification would frustrate the measure’s purpose.

The judiciary has mechanisms for urgent matters outside regular hours with rotating duty judges available nights, weekends and holidays. Duty judges can be contacted through court secretaries for extremely urgent matters. Requesting parties must demonstrate genuine urgency and explain why delays would cause harm. Injunctions are immediately enforceable, though affected parties can challenge once notified.

In Peru, ex parte injunctive relief is available where notice would frustrate the measure’s purpose, particularly in cases of asset dissipation, evidence destruction or imminent harm.

Applicants must show exceptional urgency with compelling evidence supporting claims and secrecy needs. Courts require a strong prima facie case, proof that notification would undermine effectiveness, and demonstration that harm without the measure outweighs respondent harm. Security bonds are required. Injunctions are immediately executed with prompt respondent notification, allowing challenges through opposition proceedings.

In Peru, applicants are liable for damages if injunctions are later discharged or found unjustified. When measures are revoked or expire without pursuit, or when applicants lose cases, respondents can seek compensation for direct losses regardless of good faith.

Security is required for all injunctive measures, especially ex parte applications. This includes deposits, guarantees, mortgages or bonds, with judges determining form and amount based on potential damages. Respondents must demonstrate actual losses through separate proceedings, using provided security as primary compensation. This approach ensures recovery while deterring frivolous applications.

In Peru, courts limit injunctive relief to assets within Peruvian territory due to sovereignty principles and jurisdictional limits. Courts lack direct enforcement power over foreign assets, making worldwide freezing orders unavailable.

Courts may indirectly affect foreign assets by ordering Peruvians not to transfer foreign holdings, creating obligations with extraterritorial effects. Through international agreements, courts can request foreign jurisdictions to recognise Peruvian injunctions, though effectiveness depends on foreign laws and treaties. Parties seeking multi-jurisdictional protection typically need parallel proceedings in each relevant country.

In Peru, injunctions can affect third parties possessing defendant assets or having relationships affecting dispute outcomes. The Civil Procedure Code permits extending injunctions to non-parties to preserve judgment effectiveness.

Common scenarios include freezing bank assets, blocking transfers or withholding salaries. Applicants must show connections between third parties and disputes, demonstrating how they could undermine judgments. Affected third parties can challenge measures or claim damages. Courts apply heightened scrutiny, balancing effective remedies against protecting non-parties from undue burdens.

In Peru, violating court injunctions triggers several enforcement mechanisms. Unlike common law’s contempt powers, Peru uses statutory provisions. The primary consequence is invalidating actions that contravene orders, such as voiding prohibited property transfers.

Courts can impose progressive fines for non-compliance. In flagrant cases, arrest for up to 30 days may be ordered as a last resort. Judicial officers may directly enforce orders with police assistance when needed. Non-compliance may constitute criminal disobedience with separate charges. Violators may also pay damages and costs, ensuring effective rights protection during litigation.

In Peru, civil trials combine written and oral elements. The process begins with written submissions, followed by preliminary hearings for procedural issues. Main trials feature oral components including witness testimony, expert presentations and arguments.

Evidence is examined publicly with direct questioning by parties. Judges actively direct proceedings and ensure compliance. After oral closing arguments, parties often submit written briefs. Judges issue written judgments with detailed findings and reasoning. This hybrid approach balances written thoroughness with oral transparency, reflecting judicial reform efforts towards improved efficiency and accessibility.

In Peru, shorter hearings for interim applications follow a streamlined format, typically lasting 30 minutes to two hours. The judge outlines the issue, parties present brief arguments, and the judge issues an immediate decision or reserves judgment briefly. Urgent matters may be conducted with minimal formality for timely resolution.

The system incorporates preliminary hearings before trials, where judges attempt settlement, define disputed issues, determine admissible evidence and establish timetables. Complex cases may require additional pre-trial conferences. These mechanisms aim to improve efficiency by resolving cases early and ensuring organised trials. Pre-trial management intensity corresponds to case complexity.

Jury trials are unavailable in Peruvian civil cases. The legal system relies exclusively on professional judges to decide legal and factual questions, with cases decided by individual judges or judicial panels depending on court level and proceeding type.

This reflects Peru’s civil law philosophy, prioritising codified law application by trained professionals over community judgment. Judges evaluate evidence according to legal standards and provide reasoned written decisions reviewable by higher courts. This promotes consistency and predictability. While Peru has implemented various judicial reforms, introducing civil jury trials has not been considered.

In Peruvian civil proceedings, evidence must be relevant, legally obtained and timely submitted during pleading phases, with late submissions generally rejected except for newly discovered evidence. The system recognises documents, witness testimony, expert opinions, judicial inspections and party statements as evidence. Documentary evidence, especially public documents, is presumed authentic unless proven otherwise.

Witness credibility depends on personal knowledge, relationship to parties and statement consistency. Expert evidence requires qualified professionals, with courts often appointing independent experts. Judges have considerable discretion in evidence evaluation, allowing flexibility while requiring reasoned analysis in final judgments.

Expert testimony is widely used in Peruvian civil trials. Parties may submit expert reports with pleadings or request examinations during evidence phase. Experts must have relevant qualifications and submit written reports before testimony, facing questioning from all parties.

The system emphasises court-appointed experts from official lists, considered more neutral than party-appointed experts. Judges may seek independent expertise for technical matters. Courts may appoint expert panels for complex cases or order experts to confer when opinions conflict. Courts are not bound by expert opinions but must explain their acceptance or rejection in judgments.

In Peru, civil court hearings are generally open to the public per constitutional principles, though courtroom size may limit attendance. Exceptions exist for family matters, sexual offences, issues affecting minors or privacy violation cases, which may be private.

Hearings are audio-recorded, with recordings forming the official record. Obtaining copies requires demonstrating legitimate interest. Court clerks prepare summary minutes rather than full transcripts. Parties and attorneys can access case files, but public access requires judicial authorisation. Major urban courts now offer electronic access for parties, though public digital access remains limited – balancing transparency with privacy protection.

In Peruvian civil proceedings, judges play an active role during hearings and trials. They directly question witnesses and experts, request clarifications, and guide proceedings to focus on relevant issues. Judges can limit repetitive questioning, exclude irrelevant evidence and maintain procedural order, reflecting the inquisitorial elements in Peru’s mixed system.

Regarding judgment timing, courts issue immediate decisions in straightforward cases or procedural matters where facts and law are clear. For complex cases, judgment is reserved, with 15 to 50-day timeframes depending on complexity. Complex disputes almost always receive reserved judgments. Even when immediate decisions are announced, full written judgments with complete reasoning follow later.

In Peru, commercial dispute timeframes vary by complexity, court workload and procedural issues. For standard disputes, filing to first hearing typically takes six to 12 months, including complaint admission, service, answer reception, preliminary hearing and objection resolution.

The trial phase generally lasts one to five days, though spread over weeks or months depending on scheduling and availability. From trial conclusion to judgment typically takes one to three months. Overall, average commercial disputes take 18 to 36 months from filing to first-instance judgment, with appeals adding 12 to 18 months. Specialised commercial courts in major cities process cases more efficiently than general courts in smaller jurisdictions.

In Peru, court approval is not generally required to settle most civil lawsuits between private parties. The Civil and Civil Procedure Codes recognise party autonomy, allowing litigants to reach agreements and end disputes without judicial intervention. Once settled, parties can withdraw claims or submit settlements for recognition in the case file.

Important exceptions exist where court approval is mandatory. Cases involving minors or incapacitated persons require judicial review to protect their interests. Public interest litigation, including environmental cases or consumer class actions, typically requires approval to serve the broader public good. Cases with state entities need approval from courts and government authorities. Family law matters such as divorce, custody and support arrangements require judicial review despite agreement. Settlements contravening public policy, fundamental rights or mandatory legal provisions cannot be approved regardless of consent. In these exceptions, courts review terms to ensure legal compliance and protection of vulnerable parties or public interests.

In Peru, settlement agreements between private parties can remain significantly confidential, with certain limitations. Pre-lawsuit settlements are entirely private and can include enforceable confidentiality provisions under contract law. For ongoing lawsuits, parties can either withdraw claims without stating settlement terms in court records or present general settlement agreements without detailing specific terms.

Complete confidentiality faces practical limitations. Court filings acknowledging settlements become public record, even when terms remain private. Cases requiring court approval need judicial review, creating limited official documentation. Settlements involving public entities are subject to transparency laws, limiting full confidentiality. While specific financial terms can be kept confidential through careful drafting, the settlement’s existence may remain in court records. Many parties maximise confidentiality through extrajudicial settlements with simple claim withdrawals or include liquidated damages provisions to deter confidentiality breaches.

In Peru, settlement agreement enforcement depends on whether the settlement occurred within or outside judicial proceedings. For court-approved settlements, the agreement acquires the same force as a final judgment under Article 337 of the Civil Procedure Code, allowing direct enforcement without proving the underlying obligation again.

For out-of-court settlements, enforcement follows two paths: settlements formalised through notary public deeds qualify as enforceable documents under Article 688, allowing expedited enforcement; private agreement settlements require filing a claim to have the agreement recognised as an enforceable title before proceeding. During enforcement, courts can order specific performance, payment of agreed sums, or asset seizure if necessary. Debtors’ defences are limited to proving payment or enforcement deadline expiration, creating a streamlined process that ensures properly formalised settlements provide reliable and efficient dispute resolution.

In Peru, settlement agreements can be invalidated under specific Civil and Civil Procedure Code circumstances. Primary grounds include fraud (intentional misleading), duress (coercion), material mistake (fundamental misunderstanding) and gross disproportion (extreme bargaining power inequality resulting in unfair terms).

Challenges must be filed within statutory limitations – typically two years for voidable transactions or ten years for void agreements. The challenging party bears the burden of proof, with courts balancing settlement finality against protection from flawed agreements. Partial invalidation is possible for limited defects. Settlements violating public policy, involving impossible obligations or infringing inalienable rights can be set aside regardless of intentions, reflecting Peru’s approach of respecting settlements while safeguarding against agreements undermining true consent or fundamental legal principles.

In Peru, courts grant various remedies to successful litigants depending on claim nature. Monetary damages are most common, compensating for actual losses suffered. These typically include direct damages covering actual losses incurred and lost profits for missed economic opportunities. Courts may also award moral damages for non-economic harms such as emotional distress, pain and suffering, or reputational damage.

Beyond monetary awards, Peruvian courts can grant specific performance, compelling fulfilment of contractual or legal obligations; declaratory judgments establishing legal rights without ordering specific actions; permanent injunctions prohibiting behaviours or requiring actions to prevent future harm; restitution of property in property disputes; public rectification or apologies for personal rights violations; and nullification of government decisions with corrective action orders in administrative cases. This diverse array of remedies allows courts to tailor relief to specific circumstances, ensuring effective protection of prevailing parties’ rights.

In Peru, damages are primarily compensatory rather than punitive in nature. The civil liability system aims to restore injured parties to the position they would have occupied in the absence of the wrongful act. Compensatory damages include both material damages (actual losses and lost profits) and moral damages (emotional suffering and non-economic harms). Unlike some common law jurisdictions, punitive damages are generally unavailable, as the focus remains on compensation rather than punishment or deterrence.

Peruvian law establishes no fixed statutory limits on damages, with courts determining appropriate compensation based on evidence of actual harm. However, several factors may limit awards: courts can reduce compensation for contributory negligence; the Civil Code allows judges to moderate excessive awards considering circumstances, including the defendant’s economic situation and degree of fault; and in contractual disputes, liquidated damages clauses may set predetermined compensation, though courts can adjust if manifestly excessive. This flexible approach allows the tailoring of damages to specific circumstances while ensuring compensation remains reasonable and proportional.

In Peru, pre-judgment interest is available to successful litigants and begins accruing from the date of harm or breach (for tort or contract claims) or from formal payment demand (for other obligations). For monetary obligations, interest is calculated using the legal rate established by the Central Reserve Bank, unless parties have contractually agreed to a different rate. This compensatory interest accounts for the time value of money during the period the plaintiff was deprived of rightfully owed funds.

Post-judgment interest automatically begins accruing from the date the judgment becomes final until full payment occurs. For judgments in soles, interest uses the legal rate for judicial obligations, while foreign currency judgments accrue interest at the applicable currency rate. Interest cannot exceed legal limits, with usurious rates being reduced to the maximum legal rate. Calculation typically applies to the principal sum only, avoiding compound interest except in specific commercial cases. Courts have discretion to adjust interest for extreme delay or process abuse, and judgments specify the applicable interest method by referencing the Central Reserve Bank’s published rate.

In Peru, once a judgment becomes final, the successful party can initiate enforcement if the losing party fails to comply voluntarily. The process begins with a formal compliance demand, giving the judgment debtor three to five days to fulfil the obligation or raise limited defences. If compliance does not occur, the court orders specific enforcement measures based on the obligation type.

For monetary judgments, enforcement includes: attachment and auction of the debtor’s assets; garnishment of bank accounts or wages; and recording liens on real property. For judgments requiring specific actions, courts can authorise direct enforcement by judicial officers, impose progressive coercive fines, or order substitute performance by third parties at the debtor’s expense. In extreme cases of defiance, imprisonment for up to 30 days may be ordered, though this is applied restrictively. Throughout proceedings, the judgment creditor can request investigative measures to identify the debtor’s assets through banks, property registries and tax authorities, ensuring court judgments result in actual compliance.

Peru recognises and enforces foreign judgments through an exequatur process regulated by the Civil Procedure Code and international treaties. The process begins with the judgment creditor filing a recognition application with the Superior Court where enforcement is sought, including a certified copy of the foreign judgment authenticated by Peruvian consular authorities and an official translation if not in Spanish.

Recognition requirements include: the issuing court must have had jurisdiction without infringing on Peru’s exclusive jurisdiction; the defendant must have been properly notified; judgment must be final and enforceable in its country of origin; no pending parallel proceedings in Peru; no contradiction with existing Peruvian judgments; and no violation of Peruvian public policy. Peru does not review merits during exequatur. Once recognised, the judgment acquires the same status as domestic judgments and can be enforced through standard mechanisms. The process has been simplified through agreements such as the Inter-American Convention on Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments, typically taking six to 18 months depending on complexity.

Peru’s legal system offers a structured hierarchy of appeals across multiple court levels. The first level is to Superior Courts, which provide comprehensive review of both factual findings and legal interpretations from first-instance specialised courts. Cases begin in specialised courts (civil, commercial, labour), with appeals going to corresponding specialised chambers within Superior Courts.

The second and highest ordinary level is the cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, which is limited primarily to reviewing legal errors rather than factual determinations. Beyond ordinary appeals, Peru offers extraordinary mechanisms, including constitutional complaints to the Constitutional Tribunal for rights violations cases. Additional remedies include annulment petitions for procedural defects, clarification requests for ambiguities, and revision actions for cases involving judicial misconduct or newly discovered evidence. This multilayered system balances definitive resolutions with mechanisms to correct errors and protect fundamental rights.

In Peru, appeals of judgments follow a structured process governed by the Civil Procedure Code. First-instance judgments can be appealed to Superior Courts as a matter of right, without requiring special permission, provided they meet timeframes and basic procedural requirements. The appealing party must demonstrate dissatisfaction by identifying specific errors in the lower court’s factual findings or legal reasoning that allegedly harmed their interests.

For cassation appeals to the Supreme Court, stricter requirements apply, including qualification under specific grounds: improper application of substantive law, procedural violations affecting outcomes, or jurisprudential unification needs. Economic claims must exceed approximately 50 Tax Reference Units (about USD78,000 as of 2025). The Supreme Court’s Civil Chambers conduct admissibility reviews, accepting only appeals raising significant legal questions or demonstrating clear errors in interpretation, ensuring focus on cases with broader jurisprudential significance rather than functioning as a routine third instance.

In Peru, appeals begin with submitting a written notice to the court that issued the challenged decision. For final judgments, parties have ten business days from notification to file, while interlocutory decisions allow only three business days. These strict deadlines are generally non-extendable, with late filings typically declared inadmissible. The appeal process is triggered by formal notification through physical delivery, electronic means in digitalised courts, or publication in official gazettes for special cases. The initial filing must identify challenged portions and include brief grounds for appeal, followed within three days by a detailed brief explaining alleged errors and requesting specific relief.

The original court reviews appeals only for timeliness and basic requirements before forwarding the case file to the appellate court. The opposing party may then respond with a contestation brief. Superior Court appeals include optional oral hearings, while cassation appeals to the Supreme Court have stricter formal requirements, including specifying which cassation grounds apply to the case. These procedures ensure orderly review while maintaining reasonable timeframes for resolution.

In Peru, the scope of appellate review varies by appeal type. Standard appeals to Superior Courts follow the principle of full jurisdictional review, allowing comprehensive reconsideration of both factual and legal aspects. These courts can re-examine evidence, reassess credibility and correct legal reasoning errors, though review is limited by the “tantum devolutum quantum appellatum” principle, meaning courts only address specifically challenged issues. For cassation appeals to the Supreme Court, review is narrower, focusing almost exclusively on legal errors rather than factual reassessment, with no new hearings or evidence re-evaluation.

Peru’s system restricts new evidence at the Superior Court level to documents that became available after initial judgment or evidence the party could not previously obtain despite diligence. New legal arguments are permitted if they relate to issues in the original pleadings. This system balances comprehensive review with finality concerns by allowing thorough reconsideration at the first appellate level while restricting the Supreme Court’s role to ensuring legal uniformity and correcting significant legal errors rather than functioning as a third factual instance.

In Peru, courts impose conditions when granting appeals, primarily regarding suspensive effects. Appeals “with suspensive effect” automatically stay enforcement of challenged decisions, while those “without suspensive effect” allow lower-court decisions to remain enforceable during appeals. The Civil Procedure Code specifies which decisions qualify for each type, with final judgments generally receiving suspensive effect and interlocutory decisions typically remaining enforceable. Even for appeals without automatic suspensive effect, appellants can request stays by providing security bonds proportional to potential damages.

Additional conditions apply for Supreme Court cassation appeals, which may require appellants to deposit judgment amounts or provide security for monetary judgments. For constitutional complaints, the Constitutional Tribunal may impose precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm. These mechanisms balance appellants’ rights to meaningful review against preventing abusive appeals meant to delay enforcement, with courts determining conditions based on case nature, appeal success likelihood, potential harm from enforcement or delay, and public interest considerations.

Peruvian appellate courts have substantial powers after hearing appeals, varying between Superior Courts and the Supreme Court. Superior Courts can confirm lower-court decisions when finding no errors; modify decisions by partially changing terms or remedies; or completely overturn and replace decisions with their own judgment. When finding unremedied procedural defects, they can nullify proceedings and return cases to lower courts for proper handling from the point where the defect occurred.

The Supreme Court, when reviewing cassation appeals, has more focused powers centred on legal correctness. If rejecting appeals, it confirms challenged decisions and may impose costs. If finding merit, it can overturn lower-court decisions and either render replacement judgments (when no further factual findings are needed) or remand with binding instructions on correct legal interpretation. In significant cases, the Supreme Court can issue binding precedents for all lower courts. Both appellate levels can clarify ambiguities in their decisions upon request and correct obvious clerical errors, enabling effective review while respecting each court’s structural role in Peru’s judicial system.

In Peru, cost allocation follows the “loser pays” principle established in Article 412 of the Civil Procedure Code. The losing party typically reimburses the prevailing party for court costs (filing fees, notifications, expert witnesses, judicial inspections, official disbursements) and attorneys’ fees (legal fees and related expenses). Recoverable costs must be directly related to proceedings and properly documented. For attorneys’ fees, courts moderate reimbursement based on case complexity, duration and local standards rather than accepting actual billing amounts.

Parties can challenge cost awards through objection within three business days of assessment, disputing items as excessive, unrelated or improperly documented. Exemptions exist for parties with legal aid, public prosecutors and some state entities. Courts may exempt losing parties who had reasonable litigation grounds or when both sides achieved partial success. This flexible system aims to compensate prevailing parties while preventing disproportionate cost burdens that might discourage legitimate claims.

Peruvian courts consider multiple factors when determining cost awards. The primary consideration is case outcome, with full costs typically granted to fully prevailing parties and proportional allocation in cases of partial success. Courts evaluate the reasonableness of litigation positions, potentially reducing awards against parties who presented plausible arguments despite losing. Case complexity factors – including technical difficulty, legal novelty and evidence volume – affect expense reasonableness assessments, with proceeding duration and procedural steps influencing determinations and longer cases generally justifying higher attorneys’ fees.

Litigation conduct significantly impacts awards, as courts may deny costs to winners who employed dilatory tactics or increase awards against parties who unnecessarily complicated proceedings. For attorneys’ fees, courts reference local bar association fee schedules without strict adherence, and may reduce awards for litigants with limited financial resources to prevent undue hardship. These multifaceted considerations allow courts to tailor cost awards to specific case circumstances, effectively balancing compensation for prevailing parties with broader fairness and access to justice concerns throughout the Peruvian legal system.

In Peru’s legal system, interest on litigation costs is not automatic and follows specific rules. Interest begins accruing from the established payment date until actual payment occurs, or after a five-business-day voluntary compliance period if no payment date is specified. Interest is calculated using the legal rate established by the Central Reserve Bank for obligations in soles, with corresponding rates for foreign currencies. This simple interest accrues only on the principal amount, not compounding.

Courts apply interest on both court costs and attorneys’ fees, with discretion to limit accrual in extreme delay cases. The prevailing party must specifically request interest during the cost liquidation process, as courts rarely award it automatically. This mechanism serves both compensatory and enforcement functions, providing reasonable compensation for delayed payment while incentivising prompt compliance, and continues to accrue during any enforcement proceedings necessary to collect the awarded costs.

In Peru, alternative dispute resolution has gained significant recognition over the past two decades as an effective complement to traditional litigation. The legal framework explicitly recognises ADR through Law 26872 (Conciliation), Legislative Decree 1071 (Arbitration), and Civil Code provisions on settlements. This formal recognition acknowledges ADR’s advantages in reducing court congestion, providing faster resolution and achieving more satisfactory outcomes. Arbitration is the most developed method, particularly for commercial and investment disputes, with Peru establishing an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Conciliation ranks second, functioning both independently and within judicial proceedings.

Mediation lacks conciliation’s specific statutory framework but is often treated similarly in practice, while negotiation remains common though typically informal. Specialised mechanisms include dispute boards for construction contracts and INDECOPI consumer complaint procedures. The business community views ADR favourably, particularly valuing arbitration for its confidentiality, expertise and finality. Public perception continues to improve as awareness spreads through educational campaigns and successful outcomes, reflecting growing appreciation for these alternative mechanisms throughout Peruvian society.

Peru’s legal system actively promotes ADR through multiple mechanisms. Law 26872 makes conciliation mandatory before filing most civil claims involving freely disposable rights, with courts rejecting lawsuits that fail to meet this prerequisite. During preliminary civil proceedings, judges must convene conciliation hearings, where participation is mandatory though reaching agreement remains voluntary. The system focuses on procedural consequences rather than direct sanctions for refusing ADR, with a party’s unjustified absence potentially affecting cost allocation decisions.

The state further promotes ADR by requiring arbitration in government procurement contracts and permitting arbitration clauses in administrative contracts. Financial incentives exist through tax-deductible conciliation and arbitration expenses for businesses. Educational requirements include mandatory ADR training in law schools, while the Ministry of Justice conducts public awareness campaigns highlighting ADR benefits. These comprehensive approaches demonstrate Peru’s commitment to integrating ADR within its justice system while maintaining appropriate connections to traditional judicial processes.

Peru has developed a moderately organised institutional framework for ADR services. Conciliation centres operate under Ministry of Justice authorisation with specific accreditation standards, including both private centres (universities, bar associations, chambers of commerce) and public centres offering reduced-cost services. For arbitration, key institutions include the Lima Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Center, the American Chamber of Commerce and university centres (PUCP, Universidad de Lima), which maintain qualified arbitrator rosters and regularly update procedures.

Though ADR services are concentrated in Lima, they have expanded to cities like Arequipa, Trujillo and Cusco. Government support includes training programmes and technical assistance, while regional disparities persist with limited rural access. These gaps are being addressed through mobile services and virtual platforms, particularly following technological adaptations during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Peru’s arbitration framework is governed primarily by Legislative Decree 1071 (2008), based on the UNCITRAL Model Law with modifications reflecting local traditions. This comprehensive legislation establishes Peru as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, covering both domestic and international arbitration. The law enshrines key principles including separability of arbitration agreements, kompetenz-kompetenz and procedural party autonomy.

Peru distinguishes between domestic and foreign awards for enforcement purposes. Domestic awards are immediately enforceable without judicial confirmation once the annulment notification period expires. For foreign awards, Peru applies the 1958 New York Convention and 1975 Panama Convention. Enforcement involves Superior Court applications with limited procedural review rather than substantive reconsideration. Refusal grounds mirror Article V of the New York Convention, with courts maintaining a pro-enforcement stance and interpreting exceptions narrowly. Recognition proceedings typically resolve uncomplicated cases within two to four months, creating a supportive arbitration environment that respects arbitrators’ decisions while maintaining limited judicial oversight.

In Peru, the Arbitration Law establishes that matters involving “freely disposable rights” are arbitrable, creating boundaries around eligible subject matters. Several categories are excluded from arbitration due to public policy considerations or exclusive jurisdiction provisions.

Non-arbitrable matters include: criminal matters (exclusively state jurisdiction); family law issues involving marital status, relationships, parental authority and adoption (reserved for judicial determination, though property division in divorce may be arbitrable); labour disputes concerning individual employment rights (though some collective bargaining disputes may be arbitrable); constitutional rights cases (must use judicial constitutional protection proceedings); administrative law matters involving government regulatory powers (though administrative contract disputes often include valid arbitration clauses); bankruptcy proceedings (exclusive jurisdiction of specialised courts and INDECOPI); and lower-value consumer protection claims (must follow special procedures). These limitations balance promoting arbitration with reserving public interest matters or cases involving vulnerable parties for state oversight.

In Peru, award challenges follow a restrictive approach under Legislative Decree 1071, limiting grounds for annulment to specific procedural defects rather than substantive review. Parties can file annulment actions with the Superior Court within 20 business days of notification or resolution of interpretation/correction requests.

The Arbitration Law establishes exhaustive annulment grounds: arbitration agreement invalidity; improper notification preventing case presentation; awards exceeding submission scope; improper tribunal composition or procedural irregularities; non-arbitrable subject matters; and public policy violations. Courts cannot review factual findings or legal interpretations, making errors of law inadmissible grounds. Annulment actions do not automatically suspend enforcement unless the party provides security and obtains a temporary stay. Consequences vary by specific ground – some cases return to arbitration for correction, while others terminate entirely. Peruvian courts uphold 70% to 75% of challenged awards, reflecting respect for arbitral finality while maintaining oversight for fundamental procedural guarantees.

In Peru, enforcement procedures differ between domestic and foreign awards, though both benefit from an arbitration-friendly framework. For domestic awards, the process is streamlined without requiring judicial confirmation before enforcement. Once awards become final (after the 20-business-day annulment filing period expires or after annulment rejection), prevailing parties can directly initiate enforcement before commercial or civil courts of first instance.

The process begins with filing the award and proper notification evidence. Courts issue enforcement orders requiring compliance within five business days. Opposing parties’ defences are strictly limited to payment evidence, enforcement period expiration or pending annulment proceedings. For foreign awards, enforcement requires prior recognition under New York Convention standards through Superior Court applications, including certified award copies, original arbitration agreements, and translations if needed. Both processes typically conclude within three to six months for straightforward cases, with the Arbitration Law prohibiting merits review during enforcement, focusing courts solely on implementing award terms while respecting arbitration’s finality.

In Peru, several significant dispute resolution reforms are advancing to modernise the justice system. The most substantial is the Digital Transformation of the Judiciary, implementing electronic filing, digital case management, virtual hearings and electronic notifications in phases across different court specialisms and regions, with full nationwide implementation expected by 2027. The pandemic accelerated technology adoption, with Civil Procedure Code amendments being finalised to permanently incorporate digital procedures.

Another important reform proposes to expand mandatory conciliation, with draft legislation extending pre-litigation conciliation requirements to additional dispute categories and strengthening enforcement mechanisms for agreements. In arbitration, proposed amendments to Legislative Decree 1071 seek to enhance transparency in state entity arbitrations, clarify arbitrator disclosure requirements and establish more efficient interim measure procedures. Additional specialised commercial courts with judges trained in complex business disputes are being proposed, along with a comprehensive Civil Procedure Code reform to simplify procedures, reduce formalism and incorporate international practices such as case management conferences. Most reforms will be implemented gradually between 2026 and 2028, with digital transformation leading and procedural reforms following as consensus develops.

Technology-related conflicts are Peru’s main commercial dispute growth area, particularly involving digital services, e-commerce and data protection. As Peru’s digital economy expands, disputes concerning online marketplaces, payment systems and technology service agreements have increased substantially, presenting novel jurisdictional and applicable law challenges due to their cross-border nature.

Environmental and social responsibility disputes represent another significant growth area, particularly in the natural resource and infrastructure sectors. These often combine technical environmental questions with community rights issues, creating multifaceted conflicts challenging traditional resolution mechanisms. Additional growth areas include financial services disputes as Peru’s banking sector develops more sophisticated products, and construction/infrastructure disputes amid Peru’s development push. This growing complexity drives demand for specialised tribunals, expert arbitrators and innovative case management approaches capable of handling technical and multi-jurisdictional dimensions efficiently.