Peru's highest court, the Constitutional Court, has thrown out the 15-year prison sentence given to former President Ollanta Humala and ordered that the criminal case against him be closed. The ruling was published on July 31, 2026, in the government's official newspaper, El Peruano. It cancels the entire legal process that led to his conviction earlier this year. (El Peruano)

The court agreed with a legal request Humala's lawyers filed called a habeas corpus petition. In Peru, habeas corpus is usually used to challenge unlawful imprisonment, but it can also be used to question whether a trial was conducted fairly. The court found that the principle of legality — the rule that someone can only be punished based on clearly established law, applied through fair procedures — was violated during Humala's prosecution. Instead of sending the case back for a new trial, the court told prosecutors to close the file for good. (Deutsche Welle)

A lower court had sentenced Humala to 15 years on April 15, 2026, in a corruption case. He was one of several former Peruvian presidents facing or serving sentences for corruption. The Constitutional Court's ruling now removes that conviction from the record. (El Peruano)

The decision to close the file is what makes this ruling different from a normal appeal. Usually, when a higher court overturns a conviction, prosecutors get the chance to retry the case. By ordering the investigation closed, the Constitutional Court blocks that option. (Panamericana)

The court's reasoning was based on the legality principle. The full details of exactly which procedural mistakes triggered the ruling are in the court's published decision. What stands out is that the court used habeas corpus not to stop someone from going to prison, but to undo a conviction that had already been completed.

There is a built-in tension in Peru's legal system that helps explain why this ruling matters. The Constitutional Court is the final authority on constitutional rights, while other courts handle serious criminal cases. When the Constitutional Court decides that constitutional rules were broken during a trial, lower courts have to follow that decision, and the trial's results can be wiped out entirely.

Humala was convicted alongside a group of former presidents who are at various stages of the justice system. This ruling removes him from that group, though each of the other ex-presidents still faces their own separate legal proceedings.

The bigger question is what this means for Peru's fight against corruption. When the Constitutional Court cancels a corruption conviction because the legal process was flawed, it raises a fair question: were the problems caused by individual prosecutors and judges making mistakes, or by deeper issues in how these cases are put together? That difference matters. Individual mistakes can be fixed with a new trial. But if the court's reasoning points to wider problems in how corruption cases are built, the effects could go far beyond Humala.

It is worth watching whether prosecutors try to find other legal ways to pursue the case despite the order to close it, and whether the ruling leads to a review of other corruption cases that share similar procedural issues.

The decision is final. The Constitutional Court is the last stop for constitutional matters in Peru, and there is no further appeal within the country's legal system.