Individual Corruption

The judiciary is among the most corrupt public institutions in Peru, as illustrated by Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010. According to the report, well over half of the surveyed households consider it as 'extremely corrupt', while more than a quarter reports having paid a bribe in 2009. Similarly, in the Proética Fifth National Survey on Corruption 2008, the surveyed citizens consider the judiciary to be among the most corrupt institutions in Peru. User surveys also indicate that unofficial payments affect both the speed and the final outcome of judicial processes.

Business Corruption

According to World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, surveyed business executives have a low degree of confidence in the Peruvian legal system. In general, business executives do not consider the legal framework for settling disputes and for challenging regulation to be efficient. Companies should be aware that the corrupt and inefficient judiciary poses a hindrance for settling commercial disputes in Peru. This is supported by the US Department of State 2011, which has found that contracts are often difficult to enforce because the judicial system is very slow to hear cases and to issue decisions. Outcomes have been difficult to predict and enforce, and judicial corruption is allegedly frequent. Thus, according to the report, foreign companies have encountered problems directly resulting from corruption in the judicial sector. Given these reasons, foreign investors often resort to arbitration to resolve business disputes, in order to avoid time-consuming judicial procedures.

Political Corruption

According to the US Department of State 2010, there were complaints that the judiciary was politicised and corrupt during 2010. The Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 has argued that reforms intended to strengthen the independence of the judiciary have been unsuccessful, mainly due to a lack of consensus-building between policymakers.

The Peruvian judiciary inherited a legacy from the Fujimori era of a discredited reputation and vulnerability to political and economic influences. During his presidency, Fujimori removed 70% of the judges and, according to Freedom House 2008, filled the open positions with appointees on a 'provisional basis' - meaning that they lacked experience and were effectively beholden to the government. The number of judges affiliated with the government in such a way has since declined from 70% to 30% in 2006, but the presence of corrupt judges remains a serious problem. Throughout 2006, more than 100 judges who were previously suspended due to suspicion of corruption or incompetence were reinstated.

A corruption scandal came to light in 2010, leading to the suspension of a selection process meant to fill vacant positions in the Supreme Prosecutors Office. According to Peruvian Times, a member from the selection committee offered to support one of the candidates if the candidate provided 'economic incentives' in return. According to a statement made by the National Magistrates Council (CNM), the committee member resigned from his position as a consequence of the scandal.

In August 2010, the Judicial Defence Council sent a report to the Prosecutor's Office, the Office of Magisterial Oversight, and the Supreme Court, in which it revealed a corruption network in the judiciary and named 116 magistrates, who were allegedly linked to narcotics trafficking. In response to this report, the Magisterial Oversight Office investigated and suspended some judges, according to the US Department of State 2010.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- Enforcing a commercial contract in Peru requires a company to go through an average of 36 administrative procedures, taking an average of 487 days and costing an average of 23% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the judiciary's level of independence from influences of members of government, citizens, or companies a score of 2.6 on a 7-point scale (1 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3 and 3.1 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 4.4 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

- 57.5% of households surveyed consider the judiciary to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 28.8% of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 reported to having paid a bribe.

Latinobarómetro: Annual Report 2008 (see English version):
- 47% of respondents in this public opinion survey believe that it is possible to bribe a judge in order to get a favourable sentence.

Miller & Chevalier: Latin America Corruption Survey 2008:
- 90% of the business leaders surveyed believe the judiciary to be significantly corrupt.

Proética: Fifth National Survey on Corruption 2008 (in Spanish):
- 81% of the households surveyed perceive the judiciary system to be 'corrupt' or 'very corrupt'.

- 65% of users of the courts report that processes within the judicial system (e.g. trial, extension of licences and permits, etc) are faster when a bribe is paid to the judicial personnel.