Peru has, for the first time, launched an investigation under the principle of universal jurisdiction into crimes against humanity committed in Gaza
Progress in international investigations relating to the Israeli military offensive in Gaza has prompted various countries to activate judicial mechanisms based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. In this context, Peru has, for the first time, opened a preliminary criminal investigation under this principle against an Israeli citizen for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed against the population of Gaza. This marks a historic precedent in the country and the region, as well as a significant step forward in ensuring accountability for serious violations of international law.
The complaint that led to the opening of a preliminary investigation by the Peruvian Public Prosecutor’s Office was filed in May 2025 by the Hind Rajab Foundation, in collaboration with the Peruvian lawyer Julio César Arbizu González, of the law firm Arbizu & Gamarra, marking a significant legal milestone for the region. Subsequently, on 10 June 2025, the Attorney General’s Office announced that it had assigned the case to the Specialised Unit for the Defence of Human Rights for the preliminary criminal investigation.
On 28 April 2026, the First Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office Specialising in Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism issued a formal order directing the commencement of a fifteen-day preliminary investigation. The decision expressly recognised the jurisdiction of the Peruvian authorities to intervene in the case, citing as its legal basis the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, both of which have been ratified by Peru. Furthermore, the Prosecutor’s Office maintained that, although the suspect resides in Israel, his mere presence on Peruvian territory is sufficient to trigger the mechanisms of universal jurisdiction regarding serious international crimes, in accordance with the aforementioned international instruments and Article 55 of the Peruvian Constitution.
The investigation focuses on the 424th ‘Shaked’ Battalion of the Israeli army’s Givati Brigade, which is alleged to have participated in military operations carried out in Gaza between November 2023 and October 2024. According to the complaint filed, Private Adi Karni — a member of that battalion — is alleged to have been involved in the systematic destruction of civilian property, including residential neighbourhoods and non-military infrastructure in densely populated areas such as Al-Rimal and the Jabalia refugee camp. The dossier also maintains that the military operations took place in the immediate vicinity of humanitarian and medical facilities, including UNRWA premises and essential health centres. In this regard, the complaint maintains that these military operations caused catastrophic structural damage and harmed a large number of civilians and medical personnel, forming part of what was described as a systematic pattern of violence directed against the civilian population of Gaza by the Israeli army.
The documentation submitted by the Hind Rajab Foundation includes geotagged photographs, military unit records and social media posts attributed to the suspect himself, elements which, according to the complaint, would enable the reconstruction of his alleged direct involvement in the reported events. The Peruvian Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered urgent measures aimed at verifying the suspect’s presence in the country, formally confirming his identity and analysing evidence from open sources and digital platforms.
The case forms part of a broader international litigation strategy spearheaded by the Hind Rajab Foundation, which has filed dozens of complaints in various national jurisdictions regarding acts committed in Gaza by Israeli forces and authorities, consolidating the growing use of the principle of universal jurisdiction as a legal tool to combat impunity for these international crimes.
These proceedings represent a turning point in the regional legal debate on the application of universal jurisdiction in Latin America. Although historically this mechanism has been used to a limited extent in the region, where the only active jurisdiction was that of Argentina, the Peruvian case demonstrates how national judicial systems can become forums for the investigation and prosecution of international crimes when there is a commitment to the obligations arising from international humanitarian law and the human rights treaties ratified by States.
The scope of universal jurisdiction in the Peruvian justice system
In the case of Peru, although there is no explicit recognition of universal jurisdiction in national legislation, the possibility of exercising jurisdiction is based both on the international obligations assumed by the State and on the norms incorporated into its domestic legal system. The Peruvian State itself has acknowledged before the United Nations that various international treaties ratified by the country provide, either expressly or implicitly, for the obligation to investigate and prosecute certain international crimes, even when they have been committed outside its territory and without the need for a direct link of nationality between the victims, the perpetrators and the State exercising jurisdiction. Among these instruments, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 stand out, the Convention against Torture, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, ratified on 1 November 2001, with the acceptance of the amendments relating to the crime of aggression in October 2022. Furthermore, human rights treaties have constitutional status within the Peruvian legal system, as recognised by the Constitutional Court itself.
At the domestic level, Article 2.5 of the Criminal Code establishes that Peruvian criminal law applies to offences committed abroad where Peru is obliged to prosecute them in accordance with international treaties, which constitutes the main legal basis for the application of the principle. Despite this, in procedural terms, Peru does not have a specific procedure for receiving and investigating complaints based on universal jurisdiction. However, any such complaint could be submitted to a public prosecutor, who would have to assess whether it is appropriate to initiate an investigation.
The Peruvian system also permits the use of evidence gathered by international bodies—such as United Nations mechanisms, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court—by virtue of the principle of freedom of evidence. Furthermore, although there is no strict legal category of a ‘joining complainant’, victims may join the proceedings brought by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Finally, the Peruvian legal framework permits investigations in the absence of the accused, although it does not allow trials to be held without their presence.
Conclusions
In an international context marked by the difficulties currently faced by international accountability mechanisms due to attacks against them and against multilateral organisations, the activation of universal jurisdiction mechanisms by national courts is essential. This also reaffirms the need to strengthen international cooperation and the importance of states’ commitment to the fight against impunity, particularly regarding crimes that affect the international community as a whole.
Furthermore, the case highlights the growing importance of strategic litigation and the work driven by civil society organisations in documenting, raising awareness of, and bringing to justice serious violations of international law. In this regard, the opening of this first investigation under the principle of universal jurisdiction in Peru represents a significant milestone for the region and reaffirms the role that national jurisdictions can play in addressing international crimes.
Federica Carnevale, project manager at FIBGAR.
REFERENCIAS
Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice, “Jurisdicción Universal en Latinoamérica. Análisis comparado”, 2023. Disponible en: https://www.vancecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Jurisdiccion-Universal-en-Latinoamerica.-Analisis-Comparado.-Final-publicado.pdf
Fundación Hind Rajab, “La jurisdicción universal en acción: Perú investiga a un soldado israelí por genocidio y crímenes de guerra tras una denuncia de la HRF”, 2026. Disponible en:https://www.hindrajabfoundation.org/posts/universal-jurisdiction-in-action-peru-investigates-israeli-soldier-for-genocide-and-war-crimes-after-hrf-complaint
Naciones Unidas, “Observaciones del Gobierno de la República del Perú relativas al alcance y aplicación del principio de la jurisdicción universal”, 2015. Disponible en: https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/70/universal_jurisdiction/peru_s.pdf
The New Arab, “Perú abre investigación por crímenes de guerra contra un soldado israelí por la guerra en Gaza”, 2026. Disponible en: https://www.newarab.com/news/peru-opens-war-crimes-probe-israeli-soldier-over-gaza-war
TRIAL International, “Informe Anual sobre Jurisdicción Universal 2026”, 2026. Disponible en: https://trialinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/UJAR_2026_digital.pdf
