The Truth Behind the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Terrorism in Peru: An Analysis of Key Judgments

This article critically analyzes the claim, widely circulated in Peruvian public discourse, that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights acts as a body with a pro-terrorist bias. Based on an analysis of the 24 judgments issued by the Court in cases related to terrorism against the Peruvian State, and a qualitative analysis of five representative cases, the article evaluates the validity of the two most frequent criticisms: (i) the Court always rules against Peru, and (ii) the compensation ordered amounts to millions of dollars. The results show that, while both statements are inaccurate in their formulation, a detailed analysis of the judgments reveals three systematic patterns: the invalidation of counterterrorism instruments, the omission of the plaintiffs' operational role within terrorist organizations, and operational consequences for the domestic judicial system, which do compromise the State's institutional capacity to respond to terrorist threats. The article concludes that, rather than evidencing a bias, the Court's jurisprudence reflects a structural tension between the protection of human rights and state security strategies, proposing recommendations aimed at improving this coordination.