The Supreme Court of Peru faces a historic challenge regarding the legality of Antauro.

In a crucial week for Peruvian democracy, the Supreme Court faces a historic challenge that could change the trajectory of the country’s political system. The Public Prosecutor's Office has submitted a request to annul the registration of the National Alliance of Workers, Farmers, University Students, Reservists, and Workers, popularly known as Antauro, a party linked to Antauro Humala, a controversial figure known for his anti-democratic behavior. This legal move is based on Article 14 of the Political Organizations Law, which allows the Judiciary to declare a political party illegal if it promotes behaviors that undermine democratic principles. The prosecutor's request is not a mere formality. It is based on a history of statements and actions by Antauro Humala that openly challenge the fundamental values of democracy. The group has made alarming proposals, ranging from the execution of former presidents to the persecution of migrants and sexual minorities. These extreme positions have raised alarms in a country that cannot afford to return to times of violence and authoritarianism. The significance of this process intensifies when considering that it would be an unprecedented event in Peru. Never before has a political party been subjected to a trial of this magnitude for its ideological postulates. While other nations, such as Germany or Spain, have implemented mechanisms to assess the legality of groups promoting extremist ideologies, Peru is just beginning to explore this possibility. The Supreme Court, therefore, has the opportunity and responsibility to set a precedent that could shape the future of politics in the country. The existence of this party, and the fact that it has reached this point, reflects multiple failures in the Peruvian judicial and political system. The series of errors that led the Prosecutor's Office to make this decision cannot be ignored. First, the prison system failed by allowing Humala to be released from prison earlier than warranted. Despite being convicted of serious crimes, his release was facilitated by the INPE through a sentence reduction based on work he never performed, which unleashed a torrent of criticism regarding the system's capacity to handle such cases. The next crucial error occurred within the National Jury of Elections. There, the registration of the Antauro party was approved with reasoning that seemed to ignore the obvious connection between Humala and the group. Despite the public information and the history of his leadership, the decision was justified on a mere formality that, in the eyes of many Peruvians, represented a disregard for common sense and the political reality of the country. Additionally, Congress has also been an important part of this chain of errors. The refusal to approve constitutional reforms that prevent those convicted of serious crimes from running for elected office reflects a political calculation that prioritizes the interests of certain sectors over the health of democracy. The lack of action on this point has allowed toxic figures like Humala to attempt a return to power. In this context, the Supreme Court becomes the last instance that can correct the political course. Its decision must not only be based on law but must also consider the implications of its ruling for Peruvian society. The speed and firmness with which it acts will be crucial in sending a clear message about the judiciary's stance against violence and extremism. The eyes of the nation are on this process, with the hope that the Supreme Court does not repeat the mistakes of previous institutions. History is at stake, and the opportunity to strengthen Peruvian democracy depends on the decision made at this critical moment. It will be essential for the magistrates to act with the agility that the situation demands, recognizing the significance of their role in defending democratic values. The future of the Antauro party, and consequently the political aspirations of its leader, rests in the hands of justice. The possibility of an individual with a history of crimes and contempt for democracy accessing positions of power again should be unthinkable in a society that values freedom and human rights. The Supreme Court has the responsibility to ensure that the path toward Peruvian democracy is not tarnished by violence or by ideologies that threaten its essence.