The August edition of Visión Casahierro brings together analysis of the main legal and regulatory developments that are reshaping Peru’s business and legal landscape.
From new criteria issued by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court to regulatory initiatives in financial matters, compliance, intellectual property, public procurement, and infrastructure, this newsletter provides a practical perspective on the current challenges facing organizations in an increasingly dynamic and demanding environment.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ConciliaDin
The implemented conciliation platform is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for potential infringements involving patents, utility models, industrial designs, plant breeders’ rights, and traditional knowledge.
The tool allows the parties to access a virtual conciliation procedure aimed at reaching solutions through dialogue. Hearings are conducted by INDECOPI’s Directorate of Inventions and New Technologies (DIN).
The platform provides a more accessible alternative for resolving disputes in these areas through agreements reached between the parties.
Find it here: ConciliaDin – Patenta
Intellectual Property Infringers Registry in Peru
The Intellectual Property Infringers Registry in Peru facilitates access to information on individuals and companies that have been sanctioned with final fines for intellectual property infringements.
It only includes final decisions—those that have become final at first or second instance—and remains available for four years from the date on which the decision became final. Cases in which only a warning was imposed are not included.
INDECOPI seeks to strengthen transparency and market oversight, while also creating a deterrent effect against the commission of further infringements.
COMPLIANCE
In audit processes, whether for ISO certifications or the assessment of the Prevention Model under Law No. 30424, the main risk is usually not a lack of documentation, but rather insufficient technical preparation for key processes during interviews and evidence reviews.
Some of the challenges include:
Accepting findings due to lack of regulatory knowledge: Without a thorough understanding of the applicable requirements, the team is left vulnerable to subjective criteria applied by the auditor, potentially assuming corrective commitments based on requirements that do not actually arise from the audited standard.
Competency and maturity gap: Providing training sessions, glossaries, and manuals does not guarantee that controls will be effectively adopted. If process owners hesitate over definitions or provide imprecise answers during interviews, they may demonstrate a lack of maturity that undermines the effectiveness of the model’s implementation.
Lack of fluency when substantiating controls: Insufficient practical preparation for audit interviews may cause process leaders to respond without the clarity and confidence required when addressing key questions. This can lead to delays in producing the records requested by the audit team and expose the organization to a Nonconformity regarding controls that are fully operational in practice, solely due to deficiencies in their presentation during the interview.
Successfully passing an assessment under Law No. 30424 or ISO 37001 is not a matter of luck. It requires live technical defense, realistic interview simulations, and a prior diagnostic assessment.
At Casahierro, we prepare your teams in advance so they can successfully face their audits.
LITIGATION
SUPREME DECREE No. 012-2026-MINEDU
Criteria established for prioritizing and scheduling the payment of final judicial judgments at the enforcement stage within the Education sector
Supreme Decree No. 012-2026-MINEDU established criteria for prioritizing the payment of obligations arising from final judicial judgments at the enforcement stage, within available budgetary resources. The regulation is relevant to creditors who already have a final judicial decision, as it establishes the criteria that will determine the order in which such obligations will be addressed by the Education sector.
The regulation is particularly relevant to creditors holding a final judicial decision, as it clarifies that obtaining a favorable judgment does not, by itself, result in the immediate payment of the obligation. Enforcement remains subject to the corresponding enforcement stage and to the budgetary prioritization and scheduling mechanisms established under the applicable regulations.
Accordingly, the decree establishes a framework for the progressive enforcement of final judicial judgments within the Education sector, in accordance with the established criteria and budgetary availability.
CASE No. 00456-2024-PA/TC
Constitutional Court defines the powers of enforcement judges vis-à-vis third parties
Through Judgment No. 1090/2026, issued in Case No. 00456-2024-PA/TC, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed that the enforcement of a final judgment must strictly observe the limits of res judicata, both in its objective dimension—concerning the obligation or performance ordered—and in its subjective dimension—concerning the persons covered by the judicial order.
Accordingly, enforcement judges may not alter or extend the scope of a judgment to impose its enforcement upon third parties who were not parties to the original proceedings or were not included in the judgment.
In the specific case, the Constitutional Court held that the guarantee of res judicata had been violated when the enforcement judge ordered the eviction of the “current possessors,” even though the criminal judgment for fraud and unlawful occupation had been issued against specifically identified individuals.
The Court clarified that the enforcement stage cannot be used to extend the subjective effects of a judgment or impose burdens on, or affect the possession of, third parties whose real property rights were neither disputed nor addressed in the original proceedings. By doing so, the enforcement judge substantially altered the judicial order, also affecting the principles of legal certainty and predictability within the justice system.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court declared the challenged resolution null and void and ordered the criminal court of first instance to issue a new, duly reasoned resolution to enforce the judgment strictly within its established scope.
The Court also recalled that an amparo action against judicial decisions requires, as a procedural admissibility requirement, that the challenged decision be final and that it have not been accepted by the affected party, which entails the prior exhaustion of the remedies available in the underlying proceedings.
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
El Niño Phenomenon and public procurement: can it justify a contractor’s non-performance?
The El Niño Phenomenon does not automatically justify contractual non-performance. What matters is its specific impact on the contractual obligation that was not performed.
A contractor is exempt from penalties, contract termination, and other consequences only when it demonstrates that the delay or non-performance was not attributable to it.
In the case of the El Niño Phenomenon, it is not sufficient to demonstrate the occurrence of rainfall or mudslides. It must be established that their effects—such as exceptional flooding, mudslides, landslides, collapses, or infrastructure destruction—specifically affected the performance of the contractual obligation.
The assessment requires a joint determination of:
- The intensity and magnitude of the event;
- Its location and connection to the contractual obligation;
- Whether it could reasonably have been foreseen; and
- Whether the contractor could have prevented or mitigated its effects.
The El Niño Phenomenon does not, by itself, exempt the contractor from liability. The key is to demonstrate how its specific effects affected the performance of the contractual obligation.