Peru: A Dispute Resolution: Litigation Overview

Peru’s Evolving Dispute Resolution Landscape: New Government, New Institutions, Familiar Challenges

Peru entered the second half of 2026 with a significant political shift, with Keiko Fujimori taking office as President on July 28th, after a very close runoff election against the Peruvian political left. However, the political shift is not limited solely to the Presidential institution.

The 2026–2031 period also marks the return of a bicameral Congress after more than three decades. Among other functions, the new Senate will be responsible for electing the judges of the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman. For the legal market, the simultaneous start of a new government and a new parliamentary structure ushers in a period of institutional adjustment, the effects of which will also be felt in regulatory and constitutional disputes.

In this context, for now the economy is showing signs of more stability. The Central Reserve Bank projects GDP growth of 3.4% for 2026 and 3.2% for 2027, along with a significant recovery in private investment. The key question will be whether this increased economic activity can be matched by an equally predictable institutional environment. In a market where a significant portion of disputes stems precisely from this disconnect between investment, regulation and the State’s capacity to respond, this will be one of the central questions of the coming year.

Dispute Resolution in the Context of Contractual Relationships

In Peru, the choice of dispute resolution mechanism remains a key decision when structuring a contractual relationship. The civil justice system has made progress towards oral proceedings and digitalisation since the COVID-19 pandemic began. However, while this has represented a significant advance for the judicial system, the length of proceedings – and, more specifically, the enforcement phase – remains a real concern.

This context helps explain the importance that arbitration has gained in recent decades. In public procurement, the General Public Procurement Law maintains arbitration, along with conciliation and dispute prevention and resolution committees, as mechanisms for resolving disputes arising during contract performance. In the private sector, arbitration is common in construction, energy, mining, infrastructure and complex investment transactions.

The State as a Recurring Party

Government involvement is another key element of the country’s dispute resolution landscape. As of July 2026, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’ registry listed 22 pending investment arbitration cases against Peru, the highest number among Latin American countries at this time.

The problem lies not only in how many arbitrations the State faces, but in the circumstances that cause these disputes to arise time and again. In infrastructure, mining, energy or long-term concession projects, conflicts rarely stem from a single event. They are often the result of delayed administrative decisions, permits that do not arrive on time, regulatory changes, difficulties during contract execution, or social issues that ultimately affect the development of an investment.

Therefore, a significant part of the challenge facing this new government lies in the stage prior to the beginning of disputes. Better management of public contracts, effective negotiation channels while the project is still under way, and timely decisions in response to problems that arise during implementation can prevent a commercial dispute from escalating into an investment dispute. In this regard, the government’s ability to prevent and manage conflicts is just as important as its ability to defend itself once arbitration has begun.

Digitalisation and Oral Proceedings: The Reforms That Are Making Progress and the Challenges Facing the State

While a complete restructuring of civil procedure remains pending, the most visible transformation in recent years has occurred more gradually. The judiciary has been incorporating electronic case files, virtual hearings and new management tools that are now part of the routine for a large portion of litigation. What was exceptional a few years ago has become, in the vast majority of cases, the standard way to file briefs, review case files or participate in certain judicial proceedings.

This change is particularly significant in a country as centralised as Peru. For companies, attorneys and parties located outside Lima, the ability to participate remotely has reduced costs and travel that were once an inevitable part of any legal proceeding. The expansion of oral proceedings in civil cases also points in this direction, seeking to consolidate certain proceedings and make interaction between judges and litigants more direct.

However, like any development, digitalisation has limited scope if it is not accompanied by improvements in office management and decision-making times. Filing a brief in seconds does not necessarily mean obtaining a ruling just as quickly. The challenge for the coming years will be for these tools to not only make it easier to access the system but also to help make processes more predictable, efficient and expeditious.

In this context, the new government will inherit a significant portfolio of ongoing disputes, but it will also have the opportunity to change the way many of them arise. Improved contract management, effective preventative mechanisms that intervene before conflicts escalate, and a clear policy regarding the State’s compliance with its obligations could have a more immediate impact than a new procedural reform. It will also be important to observe how the return to a bicameral Congress operates in practice, as its influence on the appointment of Constitutional Court justices may gradually alter – albeit without immediate effects – the landscape in which constitutional and regulatory disputes unfold.

The overall picture therefore combines favourable signs with known challenges; while there are better investment prospects, new authorities and gradual changes within the justice system, many of the challenges nevertheless remain the same. For companies, this means that the choice of legal avenue, the realistic prospects for enforcement, and the possibility of early negotiation must be considered before a dispute arises, rather than when it has already become inevitable. Instead of creating new dispute resolution mechanisms, the challenge will be to ensure that existing ones operate with greater predictability and that the decisions reached through them produce effective results.