*This article is part of the series When Corruption Affects Us: Reflections on Victim Participation in the Fight Against Corruption in Latin America.
It is common for victims of criminal acts to be people in situations of vulnerability, which severely limits their participation in investigations or criminal proceedings to claim their rights, either due to lack of awareness of those rights or because they lack the resources to secure adequate legal representation.
This situation is even more serious when the perpetrator is a person with economic or political power, generating an asymmetric relationship within the context of an investigation or proceeding whose objective is to repair the harm caused by the crime.
In cases of corruption, this asymmetry is exacerbated, as victims are often rendered invisible and stripped of their status as such. Historically, crimes affecting collective or diffuse interests—such as corruption—have been understood to have only one victim: the holder of the affected legal interest, namely the State. On this basis, prosecutors and judges maintain that only the Public Attorney’s Office, representing the State, is entitled to appear as a procedural party as the victim in cases of corruption, money laundering, environmental crimes, among others.
However, criminal procedural reforms in Latin America have introduced the possibility that, in cases involving crimes that affect collective or diffuse interests, non-profit civil society organizations may exercise the rights and powers of victims who have directly suffered the harm caused by the crime. In Peru, this is regulated with crystal clarity in Article 94.4 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPP):
Article 94
1. A victim is considered to be anyone who has been directly offended by the crime or harmed by its consequences.
4. In crimes that affect collective or diffuse interests, whose infringement harms an indeterminate number of persons, or in crimes classified as international crimes under international treaties approved and ratified by Peru, associations may exercise the rights and powers attributed to persons directly offended by the crime, provided that their institutional purpose is directly linked to those interests and that they were duly recognized and registered prior to the commission of the crime subject to the proceedings.
Despite this, there is resistance among prosecutors and judges to applying this provision. In some cases, this is due to ideological and cultural prejudices rooted in a conservative and formalistic legal education. In others, it stems from simple ignorance of the law. And in some instances, it is mere convenience: avoiding scrutiny or the involvement of a motivated party with technical capacity that could drive investigations and proceedings forward, thereby increasing their workload.
Based on the decision to develop anti-corruption strategies centered on victims, various efforts have been made to promote the participation of civil society organizations in criminal proceedings related to corruption. However, this has not been an easy task. Resorting to a host of arguments lacking legal basis and to obscure and convoluted reasoning, judges and prosecutors resist complying with the law.
To illustrate these tensions, the emblematic Qali Warma case currently being litigated in Peru is presented below. As will be shown, ensuring citizen participation in criminal proceedings against corruption, in the terms set out in Articles 32 and 35 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the Criminal Procedure Code, has proven to be a persistent struggle. Nevertheless, through sheer persistence, some spaces are beginning to open, suggesting that continued effort may bring better times for victims of corruption.
Background
The National School Feeding Program “Qali Warma” (which in Quechua means “vigorous child”), under the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion (MIDIS), aims to provide quality food to vulnerable children attending public educational institutions during the school year.
In March 2024, following the poisoning of dozens of poor children in the rural area of Cabana, in Puno, after consuming food unfit for human consumption distributed by the program, serious acts of corruption were uncovered. These products included horse meat, as well as spoiled food contaminated with worms or rodent feces.
Journalistic investigations revealed that public officials within the program allegedly favored the company Frigoinca S.A.C. in the procurement of canned goods under its brand “Don Simón”, in exchange for bribes totaling S/215,000 (approximately US$60,000), paid to more than 20 public officials.
Days after the public scandal broke, the owner of the company was found dead under strange circumstances suggesting the commission of a homicide. Moreover, the corruption network extended to senior State authorities, including the then President of the Republic—who had been the minister responsible for the program when the company was contracted—as well as the presidential spokesperson, a former head of the program, and two ministers from her administration, among other officials.
Several criminal investigations were opened, as it was discovered that corruption within the program had affected children in multiple regions of the country, and that there was even a case in which the President allegedly favored a personal friend with program contracts.
Challenging the System: Resistance and Some Progress
Given the seriousness of the corruption crimes, Proética—the Peruvian chapter of Transparency International—requested to be included in the criminal investigations under Article 94.4 of the CPP, arguing that these were corruption offenses simultaneously affecting collective interests of communities of low-income children, as well as diffuse interests, by harming an indeterminate group of people: Peruvian citizens affected by corruption.
Corruption Case Investigated in Lima
In November 2024, Proética requested recognition as a victim in a criminal investigation initiated ex officio before the Fourth Office of the First Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes of Corruption of Public Officials, concerning the crime of aggravated collusion. The Prosecutor’s Office declared the request inadmissible, stating that the State is the sole victim and that only the Public Attorney’s Office is entitled to represent it. It further argued that admitting multiple victims would undermine procedural efficiency.
In response, Proética filed a tutela de derechos (rights-protection motion), alleging violations of the right to reasoned prosecutorial decisions, the principle of procedural legality, the right of access to justice, and the principle of equality of arms. The 30th Preparatory Investigation Court declared the motion INADMISSIBLE, holding that representation of society’s interests lies exclusively with the State through the Public Attorney’s Office.
According to the court, Article 94(4) “is directed at persons directly offended by the crime and not at those merely harmed,” and that, in any event, “the provision appears to contain an error in referring to ‘offended’ rather than ‘harmed’ persons, and should be understood as referring to the latter; however, it applies to those directly harmed and not to those indirectly harmed whom PROETICA seeks to represent.”
Through this confusing reasoning—lacking coherence and legal support—the court concluded that Proética lacked standing to seek protection of rights because it was not an “injured party.” This decision was appealed and remains pending.
In July 2025, the Sixth Criminal Appeals Chamber declared the appeal INADMISSIBLE, reasoning that “PROETICA has not been considered an injured party during the preliminary investigations,” and therefore, while it has the right to request protection of rights, “this must occur upon the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, once the injured party or parties have been identified by the Public Prosecutor.”
The court further stated that “once the injured party has been identified by the Prosecutor’s Office, the ‘unrecognized’ injured party has access to other procedural avenues, depending on the case, including participation in the preparatory investigation, for which it must be recognized as a procedural party (civil plaintiff).” Accordingly, the Chamber held that Proética “lacks standing to appeal at this stage” because it is not a party to the prosecutorial investigation.
In sum, this convoluted and obscure reasoning maintains that, because Proética has not been recognized as a victim, it cannot appeal the denial of its rights-protection motion seeking recognition as a victim, since not being a procedural party deprives it of standing to appeal (?). In other words, because you are not a victim, you cannot claim to be recognized as a victim. A cassation appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court and is currently pending.
The Puno Case
Simultaneously, an investigation was opened in the Andean region of Puno, where the first poisoning occurred. In January 2025, Proética also requested to be recognized as a victim. The prosecutor ordered that the organization be “entered into the record,” while noting that the Decentralized Anti-Corruption Public Attorney’s Office of Puno had already appeared as the injured party, and that the duly recognized procedural parties were “the prosecutor, the defendant, the defense attorney, and the judge.” It remained unclear what it meant to have the association “entered into the record,” or why this excluded the Public Attorney’s Office as a procedural party.
Consolidated Cases in Lima
In January 2025, the various corruption investigations related to the Qali Warma case—including those mentioned above—were consolidated before the Ninth Supraprovincial Office in Lima, with the formal opening of the preparatory investigation under a case declared complex and subject to the Organized Crime Law.
In light of this procedural development, Proética submitted a new request seeking recognition as an injured party in the consolidated investigation pursuant to Article 94.4 of the CPP.
Although the prosecutor issued a decision acknowledging that “organizations such as PROETICA play a fundamental role in oversight and the promotion of transparency, consistent with Peru’s international commitments,” he nonetheless held that “the Peruvian State is the injured party in crimes of corruption of public officials, duly represented by the Public Attorney’s Office,” and therefore declared the request INADMISSIBLE.
Proética sought reconsideration, which was declared UNFOUNDED on the following grounds:
a) It is for the Public Attorney (State defense) to seek recognition as a civil plaintiff as the holder of the reparatory claim, being the only party entitled to exercise such action in criminal proceedings.
b) The Constitution, in Article 159, assigns the Public Prosecutor’s Office responsibility for protecting diffuse and collective interests in criminal proceedings, reflected in Articles 1.1 and 60.1 of the CPP.
c) It is not denied that investigations into corruption offenses implicate the protection of diffuse interests beyond the proper functioning of public administration; however, the standing granted by Article 94.4 of the CPP to Proética or others does not constitute an absolute right.
d) The association must demonstrate how its activities are related to the persons offended by the crime.
Here, the prosecutor not only assigns exclusive representation of those harmed by corruption offenses to the State defense and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, but also arbitrarily qualifies Article 94.4 of the CPP as a non-absolute right and imposes requirements not found in the provision, precisely because it concerns collective or diffuse victims.
Proética then filed a rights-protection motion before the guarantees judge, which fell to the same 30th Guarantees Court that had denied the previous motion. Proética requested that the judge recuse himself for having prejudged the matter. The court rejected the recusal request and declared the motion INADMISSIBLE, arguing that it was the same request previously decided and currently pending appeal.
When Proética appealed this new decision, the court again declared it INADMISSIBLE, citing the Sixth Criminal Chamber’s earlier ruling that Proética lacked standing to appeal because it was not a party to the criminal proceedings.
Case Against President Dina Boluarte for Illegal Contracting at MIDIS and Favoring Her Friend Víctor Torres with Qali Warma Contracts
Because this case concerns crimes affecting diffuse and collective interests—such as public trust, proper public administration, and access to essential services for a defined group of children linked by a legal relationship—in January 2025, Proética filed a request before the Office of the Prosecutor General seeking recognition as an injured party under Article 94.4 of the CPP.¹
The Prosecutor’s Office rejected the request, asserting that only the Public Attorney’s Office represents the State as the injured party. Proética then filed a rights-protection motion before the Supreme Guarantees Judge, who ruled IN FAVOR of the request.
In this landmark decision, Supreme Justice Juan Carlos Checkley Soria held:
a) Not only defendants are entitled to file a rights-protection motion; under the principle of procedural equality, any procedural subject may challenge and oversee, through such a motion, the proper exercise of prosecutorial functions.
b) Under Article 94 of the CPP, associations are considered injured parties in crimes affecting diffuse or collective interests harming an indeterminate number of persons.
c) In crimes involving corruption of public officials, the State may not be the sole party affected; other natural or legal persons may be directly harmed by the conduct of public officials.
d) Article 82 of the Civil Procedure Code allows non-profit associations or institutions, duly authorized by law and judicial determination, to promote or intervene in proceedings involving diffuse interests.
e) The legal system authorizes duly legitimized associations to promote and intervene in judicial proceedings to defend the interests of a harmed sector, and there is no doubt that the fight against corruption constitutes a diffuse right protected by the Constitution.
f) In this case, the investigation concerns aggravated collusion, where a public official conspires with private parties to defraud the State. While this is not a case directly concerning the poisoning of citizens through spoiled food distributed by Qali Warma, the result or effect of the collusion was precisely the poisoning of the program’s beneficiaries.
g) Proética is duly registered and has as its institutional purpose the promotion of transparency in public affairs, proper oversight thereof, and the promotion of transparency and business ethics in the private sector.
This decision has been appealed by both the Prosecutor’s Office and the Public Attorney’s Office and must therefore be reviewed by the Supreme Court. If upheld, Proética should be admitted as an injured party in the investigation, with full authority to exercise all rights and powers attributed to persons directly harmed by these acts of corruption.
Epilogue
The Qali Warma case demonstrates that, despite institutional resistance, progress can be made in recognizing civil society participation in criminal corruption proceedings through persistent and strategic use of available legal mechanisms.
Prosecutorial decisions and judicial rulings increasingly acknowledge—albeit through arbitrary interpretations—the need to distinguish between the affected party (the holder of the legal interest) and the person harmed by the crime (the victim).
It is also increasingly accepted that the State is not the sole party with procedural standing in corruption cases, and that victims and those exercising their rights may also participate.
The interpretation has gained ground that corruption crimes affect collective and/or diffuse interests and therefore cause social harm impacting broad sectors of the population.
The ruling of Supreme Justice Juan Carlos Checkley—which we hope will be upheld on appeal—leaves no doubt that Article 94.4 of the CPP mandates the participation of non-profit civil society organizations in corruption cases, with no additional requirements beyond prior registration and an institutional purpose aligned with the fight against corruption. This is highly significant, as it excludes arguments requiring direct victimization or direct linkage to those harmed.
We trust that the trend toward proper application of Article 94.4 will continue to consolidate in the years ahead.
¹ As this case concerns the investigation of a person who was serving as President of the Republic for crimes allegedly committed while she was a minister of State, jurisdiction lies with the Prosecutor General, and the guarantees judge hearing the rights-protection motion must be a Supreme Court justice.
José Ugaz is a Peruvian attorney. He served as National Prosecutor in the Fujimori–Montesinos corruption case and is a former President of Proética (Peru) and Transparency International.
Suggested citation: Ugaz, José. Centrality of Victims and the Inclusion of Civil Society Organizations in Corruption Investigations and Proceedings in Peru. DPLF. January 19, 2026. Available at: https://dplf.org/en/2026/02/12/centrality-of-victims-and-the-inclusion-of-civil-society-organizations-in-corruption-investigations-and-proceedings-in-peru/