The Court’s ruling rests on violations of fundamental legal principles, specifically the principles of legality and typicity connected to the right to personal freedom. The justices concluded that the alleged offense was not properly defined under Peruvian law at the time of the events in question. A key element of the legal argument, noted by legal analysts and reported in local coverage, is that the specific penal type for the alleged conduct was not fully integrated or applied in the manner required by the Constitution at the time the alleged crimes occurred. Reports indicate that the relevant penal provision was added to the legal framework in November 2016, raising concerns about the retroactive application of criminal law.
Humala, who served as President of Peru from 2011 to 2016, was originally convicted of accepting illegal funds from then-Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and the Brazilian construction company Odebrecht. These funds were allegedly used to finance his election campaigns in 2006 and 2011. The prosecution had argued that the contributions constituted money laundering, a charge that led to his conviction and subsequent imprisonment.
However, the Constitutional Court found that the accusation relied on general inferences regarding alleged corruption linked to international companies without concretely demonstrating the illicit origin of the funds. The ruling emphasized that it was not coherently proven that Humala knew, or could have foreseen, the illicit nature of the money at the time he received it. The Court determined that the source of the alleged money laundering was never individualized in a manner that satisfied the strict requirements of criminal law. Consequently, the Court ordered the archiving of the preliminary investigation, rendering the prior legal actions without effect.
The legal defense of the former president had previously argued that the contributions received for electoral campaigns do not constitute money laundering under Peruvian law. The Constitutional Court’s decision aligns with this defense, establishing that the procedural and substantive requirements for a valid corruption charge were not met. The Criminal Chamber currently handling the case is now mandated to order the definitive dismissal of the proceedings and ensure Humala’s freedom.
This ruling represents a significant shift in Peru’s ongoing efforts to address corruption linked to political financing and the “Lava Jato” scandal, which has implicated numerous public officials and private sector entities. While the annulment grants Humala his liberty, it also raises broader questions about the consistency of applying anti-corruption statutes to past political campaigns. The decision underscores the Constitutional Court’s role in safeguarding due process and ensuring that criminal convictions are grounded in clear, non-retroactive legal definitions.
Humala is expected to be released from Barbadillo Prison following the formal execution of the Court’s order. The outcome concludes a legal battle that has dominated Peruvian political discourse for several years, marking the end of his tenure as a detainee and raising new discussions about the limits of prosecutorial power in corruption cases involving former heads of state.
