Peru

Peru is a country in South America, which obtained its independence from Spain in 1821. Peru is a unitary state and a presidential representative democratic republic. It has an elected two-chamber Congress and an elected president acting as head of state. According to the 2017 census, Peru has a population of 31,237.385 inhabitants.

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
There is systematic religious privilege
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Religious groups control some public or social services
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment
Official symbolic deference to religion
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Constitution and government
There is systematic religious privilege
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment
Official symbolic deference to religion
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Education and children’s rights
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Religious groups control some public or social services
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

Peru is a secular, non-denominational State insofar as it declares its independence and autonomy from any religious organizations and authorities. The 1993 Constitution[ref]http://www.congreso.gob.pe/Docs/files/CONSTITUTION_27_11_2012_ENG.pdf[/ref] does not proclaim an official religion even though the preamble includes an invocation to the almighty God.

The Constitution, and other laws and policies generally protect freedom of belief. Ch.1, Article 2.3 states that every person has the right: “to freedom of conscience and religion, in an individual or collective manner. No person shall be persecuted on the basis of his ideas or beliefs. There is no crime of opinion. Public exercise of any faith is free, insofar as it does not constitute an offense against morals or a disturbance of the public order.”

Article 45 recognizes that the power of the State emanates from the people while Article 55 recognizes as national laws the convention and the treaties ratified by the government. However, while the Constitution establishes separation of church and state, it recognizes the Catholic Church’s role as “an important element in the historical, cultural, and moral development of the nation.” (Article 50)

This article is the result of a long relationship between the Peruvian State and the Catholic Church, which was formally recognized in the Concordat signed in 1980.[ref]https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/archivio/documents/rc_seg-st_19800726_santa-sede-peru_sp.html[/ref]

The Ministry of Justice and Human Rights is the state organ in charge of guaranteeing inclusiveness and transparency while promoting respect and protection of human rights.[ref]https://www.minjus.gob.pe/page/2/?s=Libertad+religiosa[/ref] Within the ministry, the General Directorate of Justice and Religious Freedom is in charge of publishing compendiums of regulations and jurisprudence on the Right to Religious Freedom in Peru, which aims to promote human rights among public officials, law operators, and the general public.[ref]https://www.minjus.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/organized.pdf[/ref]

According to Article 37, “Extradition shall not be granted when it is determined that the request was motivated by persecution or punishment on grounds of religion, nationality, opinion, or race.”

Belief Demographics

According to the 2017 National Census of the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI),[ref]https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1539/libro.pdf[/ref] Catholicism dropped from 81.3% in 2007 to 76.0% (approximately 17,635,000 people) in 2017. Nonetheless, Catholicism remains the majority group in the country. On the contrary, the number of Evangelicals has increased from 12.5% to 14.1% (approximately 3,264,000 people).

The percentage of non-religious affiliates almost doubled, from 2.91% (2007) to 5.1% (approximately 1,180,000 people) in 2017. 48.97% of “nones” corresponds to young people between 15 and 29 years old. Other denominations, such as Christians, Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Israelites, Buddhis, Jews, Muslims, among others) also increased from 3.3% to 4.8% (approximately 1,115,000 people).

Education and children’s rights

Article 14 of the constitution establishes that “…religious education must respect the freedom of conscience. Education is provided at all levels, in conformity with constitutional principles and the purposes of the relevant educational institution.” Meanwhile, article 17 states that “the law sets forth the method of subsidizing private education in any of its forms, for those who cannot afford it.” Other laws mandate that all schools, public and private, provide religious education through the primary and secondary levels, “without violating the freedom of conscience of the student, parents, or teachers.”

With the 1980 Concordat, the Peruvian State assumes the commitment to teach the Catholic religion course in public schools as an ordinary subject. The law only permits the teaching of Catholicism in public schools, and the Ministry of Education mandates the presiding Catholic bishop of an area approves religious education teachers in all public schools. However, Parents may make a request to the principal to exempt their children from mandatory religion classes. Many secular private schools are granted exemptions from the religious education requirement. The law protects students who seek exemptions from Catholic education classes from being disadvantaged academically in both private and public schools.

According to Ricardo Cuenca, general director of the Institute of Peruvian Studies (IEP), the concordat represents a great obstacle on the face of any educational reform in the country. He stated, “no matter how much a Minister of Education wants to modify the content of the religious course, reduce the hours or remove it from the Curriculum, they will not be able to do so until a detailed revision of the Concordat as the only way for Peru to have independence regarding the education that is imparted to children.”[ref]https://redaccion.lamula.pe/2017/02/08/curso-religion-peru-ministerio-educacion-concordato-iglesia-catolica-ricardo-cuenca-opinion/jorgepaucar/[/ref]

Family, community and society

Sexual reproductive health

Groups, such as Catholic NGO, ALA Sin Componenda, have fought to prohibit the distribution of the so-called “morning-after pill” since 2004. Although in 2009, the Constitutional Court ordered the Ministry of Health to stop delivering the pill, in July 2019, the First Constitutional Court of Lima annulled the ruling, closing the discussion around the contraception debate.[ref]https://wayka.pe/pastilla-del-dia-siguiente-se-inicia-nueva-audiencia-para-prohibir-su-distribucion/?fbclid=IwAR2U_b7dz9pw2_kkACkhz-cos3XmlnrvrKu5yWBat_iyJyLC6Rv3Lp-3JsU[/ref]

Catholic privilege

The Peruvian government’s Office of Catholic Affairs, pays stipends to the Catholic cardinal, archbishops, and other Catholic Church officials amounting to a total of at least $1 million annually. Some Catholic clergy and laypersons employed by the church receive remuneration from the government in addition to the stipends they receive from the Church. According to Catholics for the Right to Decide, there are a total of 1,030 people in 54 positions. Bishops and archbishops also received life retirement pensions payable with taxpayer money.[ref]https://www.cddperu.org/es/informacion/noticias/presupuesto-nacional-y-estado-laico[/ref]

In addition, the Catholic Church is exempt from paying income tax, the general sales tax (IGV), taxes on exports of goods, Selective Consumption Tax, Property Tax, Vehicle Wealth Tax, Operating License, among others.[ref]https://www.cddperu.org/es/informacion/noticias/presupuesto-nacional-y-estado-laico[/ref]

The Ministry of Defense financially supports the Military Bishopric to “evangelize” the members of the armed forces and police. The subsidy allows “the operation of the headquarters of the military bishopric to carry out pastoral and religious tasks through visits to the military and police regions to bring the word of God, the administration of the sacraments, and to guide the work of the chaplains.[ref]https://www.mindef.gob.pe/informacion/transparencia/INFORME%20SUBVENCIONES%202011.pdf[/ref]

As was agreed under the 1980 Peru-Vatican Concordat, the military and the armed forces may employ only Catholic clergy as chaplains. However, a proposal has been made by the political group Peruanos Por el Kambio in February 2019 to allow Evangelical chaplains to also offer religious services.

Registration of other religious organizations

Other religious denominations must register within the government to gain recognition. The 2016 Religious Freedom and Registry of Religious Entities booklet defines religious freedoms as “the decision of each human being to freely and voluntarily choose the religion that best satisfies her spirituality, as well as not to choose religion or not to embrace any belief. Likewise, it implies the freedom to exercise their belief publicly, individually and collectively, if they so decide, without being a victim of discrimination or an attempt to change against their will.”[ref]https://www.minjus.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Cartilla-La-Libertad-Religiosa-en-el-Per%C3%BA-y-el-Registro-de-Entidades-Religiosas.pdf[/ref]

The Directorate of Interfaith Affairs of the Directorate General of Justice and Religious Liberty of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights oversees the Registry of Religious Entities (RER) to facilitate their relations with the State. Registration is voluntary, but the organizations must fulfill several requirements, included but not limited to the proper identification of their religious practices; have an active presence in the country for at least seven years; and have a minimum number of followers of at least 500 members, except in the case of historical religious confession.[ref]https://www.minjus.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/TRIPTICO-DAI.pdf[/ref]

At the time of writing (September 2020), 139 non-Catholic organizations and 17 missionary organizations have been registered. This change presents 12 non-Catholic organizations and one missionary organization more since last year’s report.[ref]https://www.minjus.gob.pe/registro-nacional-de-confesiones-y-entidades-religiosas/[/ref]

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

The lively press is for the most part privately owned. Officials and private actors sometimes intimidate or even attack journalists in response to negative coverage. According to the National Association of Journalists of Peru (ANP), in 2016, 114 attacks were committed against journalists in the country. On average, a journalist was attacked almost every three days that year. The ANP reports that “Most of the attacks were committed by public officials (45), followed by civilians (39); unidentified elements (21) and police, military, or security forces (9). Physical and verbal aggression lead the attacks with 38 cases followed by legal pressure (27), as well as threats and harassment (21), (8) obstacles to access to information, (3) attacks against property, and (3) robberies.”[ref]http://www.anp.org.pe/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2112:anp-peru-registro-114-ataques-a-periodistas-durante-el-2016&catid=60:nacionales&Itemid=86[/ref]

Reporters without Borders place Peru 90/180 in their press freedom index.

Highlighted Cases

In 2019, a student, who identified as an atheist, sued the Catholic University of Chimbote when the university refused to excuse him for taking a class with religious content. The student argued a violation of his constitutional rights of freedom of conscience and religion. However, judge Carlos Morales Hidalgo from the Ayacucho Transitory Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the university.  According to the judge, “seeking the exemption of academic subjects with religious content, constitutes an irregular exercise of the student right to religious freedom. Not only because the university had previously established its Catholic affiliation by imparting and respecting the principles and values ​​contained in the Catholic religion but also because the student was free to choose a university according to his ideals and beliefs, and yet he chose this particular university.”[ref]https://img.lpderecho.pe/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Exp.-00076-2019-0-0501-JR-DC-01.pdf[/ref]