Diplomatic asylum and its procedural limits in light of the principle of non-impunity: an analysis of the peruvian proposal to reinterpret article ix of the Caracas Convention

Abstract

Diplomatic asylum is a long-standing institution in international law, codified in the 1954 Caracas Convention as an exceptional mechanism for the protection of individuals facing political persecution. In recent decades, however, its practice has shown a tendency toward excessive expansion, with situations linked to ordinary criminal proceedings for common crimes being classified as political persecution, even in democratic States that provide formal guarantees of due process. Such practices have generated tensions with core principles of the international legal order, undermined judicial cooperation among States, and challenged the protective purpose underlying the Caracas Convention.

In this context, the Peruvian State submitted to the Organization of American States a proposal aimed at having its legal advisory body, the Inter-American Juridical Committee (CJI), examine the proper application of Article IX of the Caracas Convention through the introduction of objective criteria and minimum procedural standards to assess the nature of the offense prior to granting diplomatic asylum. This article examines whether such an initiative constitutes an impermissible restriction on the institution of asylum or, alternatively, a legitimate and necessary procedural delimitation consistent with its protective purpose.

The analysis is based on the normative framework of the Caracas Convention and relevant doctrine, as well as the contemporary institutional context in which diplomatic asylum operates. The article argues that the Peruvian proposal does not undermine diplomatic asylum but rather strengthens its legitimacy by reaffirming its exceptional character, reducing unjustified discretionary decision-making, and aligning its exercise with the principle of non-impunity and the rule of law.