Peru - AI Usage in Penal Code (6573/2023)

Overview

Project 6573/2023-CR proposed to modify the Peruvian Penal Code (Decreto Legislativo 635/Decreto Legislativo 957 references in the dictamen) and Ley N.° 30096 (Ley de Delitos Informáticos) to incorporate the use of artificial intelligence and related technologies as an express aggravating circumstance when they are employed in the commission of crimes. The initiative was one of several related bills consolidated into a single dictamen by the Comisión de Justicia y Derechos Humanos (relatoría 14/4/2025) and subsequently approved by the Pleno of the Congreso in April 2025. The consolidated text seeks to add new literals and numerals to existing penal provisions so judges may increase a custodial sentence by up to one third above the statutory maximum when AI is used to commit, facilitate or magnify criminal conduct. Official legislative materials and the commission report explain that the scope covers deepfakes and AI-generated multimedia used in crimes such as sexual exploitation of minors, defamation and fraud. For the congressional announcement see Congreso: Incluyen como agravante uso de la inteligencia artificial and for the session record see the Diario de Debates archive. ([comunicaciones.congreso.gob.pe](https://comunicaciones.congreso.gob.pe/noticias/incluyen-como-agravante-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-la-comision-de-delitos/?utm_source=openai))

Definitions

The draft and the consolidated dictamen include definitions to delimit technical scope: (a) 'inteligencia artificial' — systems that, given a set of inputs, produce outputs such as predictions, content or decisions; (b) 'contenido multimedia por inteligencia artificial' — images, audio, video or other media wholly or partly generated or materially altered by AI processes; and (c) 'deepfakes' — AI-produced or AI-manipulated audiovisual content that realistically impersonates or fabricates representations of real persons. The legislative text states that the aggravating circumstance applies when such technologies are used in the commission, preparation or concealment of an otherwise defined criminal offense, and it clarifies that the amendment is collateral to the tipification of offences rather than creating new criminal types. These definitional provisions are central to limiting reach and guiding evidentiary practice.

Governance and Institutional Framework

Primary responsibility for the measure’s implementation is split: the Congreso of the Republic enacted the modification (legislative authority), while the Executive (specifically the Presidency of the Council of Ministers — PCM — and the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights — Minjus) is charged with issuing complementary regulation within 60 calendar days of entry into force to operationalize definitions, procedural coordination and technical standards. The Ministerio Público (Public Prosecutor’s Office) must integrate the aggravating circumstance into charges and prosecutorial guidance; the Policía Nacional del Perú and forensic units must develop investigative and digital forensics capabilities to identify AI-generated evidence; and the Judiciary must update sentencing guidelines and evidentiary assessment practices. The congressional communication and the commission dictamen describe this shared governance arrangement and the delegated regulatory timeline. ([comunicaciones.congreso.gob.pe](https://comunicaciones.congreso.gob.pe/noticias/incluyen-como-agravante-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-la-comision-de-delitos/?utm_source=openai))

Key Focus Areas

The bill emphasizes several policy objectives: (1) strengthen penalties where AI amplifies harm (e.g., rapid dissemination of defamatory deepfakes or AI-generated child sexual abuse material); (2) deter misuse of AI tools in fraud, identity theft and intellectual property violations; (3) protect fundamental rights (honor, privacy, sexual freedom) by signaling enhanced culpability when AI tools are used; (4) ensure procedural channels for evidence preservation and technical attribution; and (5) mandate executive regulation to standardize definitions, evidentiary thresholds and inter-agency cooperation. Debate around the bill highlighted tensions between punitive deterrence and the need for precise, technology-neutral drafting that does not chill legitimate AI development. The Chamber record and commission analysis set out the main problem statements and anticipated benefits and risks. ([www2.congreso.gob.pe](https://www2.congreso.gob.pe/sicr/diariodebates/publicad.nsf/2b66b8a68552546d05256f1000575a5c/05256d6e0073dfe905258c6f00096a96?OpenDocument=&utm_source=openai))

Implementation Framework

Implementation hinges on complementary regulation and institutional capacity-building. The law (as drafted in the dictamen) requires the Executive to issue implementing rules within 60 days of the law's entry into force; those rules are expected to define evidentiary standards for proving AI use, protocols for preserving and analyzing digital evidence, rules on chain of custody for AI artifacts, and coordination mechanisms between Ministerio Público, Policía Nacional and technical forensic laboratories. The implementing regulation also provides the principal avenue to narrow or clarify the bill’s language (for example, what qualifies as "technologies similar or analogous") and to create guidance for prosecutors and judges. Absent timely regulation and investment in digital forensics, practical enforcement could be uneven. ([comunicaciones.congreso.gob.pe](https://comunicaciones.congreso.gob.pe/noticias/incluyen-como-agravante-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-la-comision-de-delitos/?utm_source=openai))

Monitoring and Evaluation

The consolidated dictamen anticipates the need for monitoring outcomes: rates of charging with the aggravating circumstance, sentences imposed with the enhancement, trends in AI-enabled offences, and the capacity of forensic services. The Executive regulation is expected to require periodic reporting by Ministerio Público and Policía Nacional to allow evaluation of effectiveness and unintended consequences (e.g., wrongful attribution, prosecutorial overreach or impacts on lawful AI use). Observers and civil society organizations are likely to call for independent metrics on how the aggravating factor affects prosecutions and whether safeguards against overbroad application are effective.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

The draft does not create standalone criminal offenses but makes the use of AI an aggravating circumstance that permits judges to increase the penalty up to one third above the maximum legal term for the underlying offence. Consequently, liability remains tied to the predicate crime (e.g., child exploitation, defamation, fraud), and the aggravation modifies sentencing exposure rather than creating new substantive criminal liability. The text preserves standard appellate remedies and due process protections; judicial doctrine and appellate review will shape the threshold of proof required to demonstrate the AI aggravant. The commission and plenary materials stress judicial discretion combined with prosecutorial burden to prove use of AI tools in the offence. ([comunicaciones.congreso.gob.pe](https://comunicaciones.congreso.gob.pe/noticias/incluyen-como-agravante-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-la-comision-de-delitos/?utm_source=openai))

Relationship to Other Instruments

The measure explicitly amends the Penal Code (Decreto Legislativo N.° 635 and references to Decreto Legislativo N.° 957 within the dictamen) and Ley N.° 30096 (Ley de Delitos Informáticos). It interlocks with data protection law, intellectual property law and sectoral regulation (for example media, telecoms and platforms), which may bear on evidence preservation, takedown procedures and cross-border cooperation. The implementation and enforcement of the aggravating circumstance will require coherence with Peru's data protection regime and with mutual legal assistance instruments where evidence or AI services are hosted abroad. The commission report cites relevant statutory cross-links and the need for coordinated regulation.

International Alignment

Project 6573/2023 follows a global trend of legislatures seeking to address harms caused or facilitated by AI (e.g., deepfakes and automated fraud) by adapting existing criminal frameworks. While the measure is domestic and focuses on aggravation rather than extraterritorial criminalization, it raises issues of cross-border evidence gathering, platform liability and alignment with emerging international standards and guidance on AI governance. The bill’s emphasis on executive regulation and inter-agency capacity mirrors recommendations in international technical assistance reports that stress the need for defined evidentiary standards and forensic capabilities. Observers have compared the approach to other jurisdictions that are embedding technology-specific sentencing factors or new offences addressing AI-mediated harms. ([andina.pe](https://andina.pe/agencia/seccion-economia-%202.aspx/www.indecopi.gob.pe/noticia-congreso-incluye-como-agravante-uso-ia-para-comision-delitos-1026616.aspx?utm_source=openai))

Implementation Timeline

These dates derive from the commission dictamen, Diario de Debates and congressional news communications. The Executive regulation deadline (if law is promulgated) would be 60 calendar days from entry into force as set in the consolidated text.

Sources and References