President Dina Boluarte has blasted the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for its opposition to a recently passed bill that would grant amnesty to soldiers, police officers and other security personnel involved in Peru’s internal conflict from 1985 to 2000.

On Thursday, Boluarte asserted that the international court had overstepped its authority by seeking the law’s suspension.

“We are not anyone’s colony,” she said, posting a snippet of her speech to social media.

“And we will not allow the intervention of the Inter-American Court that intends to suspend a bill that seeks justice for members of our armed forces, our National Police and the self-defence committees that fought, risking their lives, against the insanity of terrorism.”

Since passing Peru’s Congress in July, the amnesty law has been awaiting Boluarte’s approval. She can either sign it into law, allow it to take effect automatically or send it back to Congress for revisions.

But the bill has prompted international outcry, not least because it is seen to shield security forces from accountability for the atrocities that unfolded during Peru’s war.

The legislation would also offer “humanitarian” amnesty to perpetrators over age 70 who have been convicted of wartime crimes.

Some 70,000 people were killed in the internal conflict, the majority of them from rural and Indigenous communities.

Soldiers and police officers were ostensibly tasked with combatting armed uprisings from rebel groups like the Shining Path and the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement. But the conflict became infamous for its human rights abuses and massacres of civilians with no ties to any rebel group.

Francisco Ochoa was 14 years old when residents in his Andean village, Accomarca, were slaughtered by soldiers. He told Al Jazeera earlier this week that he and other survivors felt “outraged and betrayed” by the new amnesty law.

International organisations have likewise denounced the law as a step backwards for Peruvian society.

Nine human rights experts with the United Nations signed a statement on July 17 expressing “alarm” at the bill’s passage through Congress. They called on the government of Peru to veto the bill.

“The proposed legislation would prevent the criminal prosecution and condemnation of individuals who committed gross human rights violations during Peru’s internal armed conflict,” they said.

“It would put the State in clear breach of its obligations under international law.”

A week later, on July 24, the president of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Nancy Hernandez Lopez, ordered Peru to “immediately suspend the processing” of the bill. She ruled that the legislation violated previous rulings against such amnesty laws in the country.

“If it is not suspended, the competent authorities refrain from enforcing this law,” she said.

She noted that a session would be convened with survivors, Peruvian officials and members of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

In previous rulings, the Inter-American Court has found that amnesty laws and statutes of limitations are unlawful in the case of serious human rights violations like forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions.

It also declared that age is not a disqualifying factor for suspects accused of grave human rights abuses. Such exemptions, the court said, are only acceptable under international law for lesser or nonviolent offences.

The National Human Rights Coordinator, a coalition of humanitarian groups in Peru, estimates that the country’s latest amnesty law could overturn 156 convictions and disrupt more than 600 ongoing investigations.

A previous amnesty law implemented in 1995, under then-President Alberto Fujimori, was later repealed.

Still, President Boluarte on Thursday sought to frame her government’s actions as in line with international human rights standards.

“We are defenders of human rights, of citizens,” she wrote on social media, while emphasising that her government was “free”, “sovereign” and “autonomous”, apparent jabs at the Inter-American Court’s decision.

The US says it is going to impose sanctions on the Palestinians’ self-governance organisation as well as the body that represents it on the international stage.

The sanctions affect both the Palestinian Authority (PA) which was established by the Oslo peace accords, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) which was recognised after the same process as the official representative of the Palestinian people in return for it recognising Israel and renouncing violence.

The State Department said it would deny visas to PLO members and PA officials.

The timing and language of the statement suggest it is the Trump administration’s response to this week’s French-Saudi led conference at the United Nations held to rally support for a future two state solution.

The meeting came as France, the UK and Canada committed to recognising an independent, demilitarised Palestinian state later this year, in some cases subject to certain conditions.

The US castigated these moves, having privately warned of diplomatic consequences if those attending the UN conference made “anti-Israel” declarations.

In its sanctions announcement, the State Department accused the PA and PLO of taking actions to “internationalise its conflict with Israel such as through the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ)”.

It also referred to a series of long-standing complaints by the US and Israel that the PLO and PA had continued “to support terrorism including incitement and glorification of violence (especially in textbooks), and providing payments and benefits in support of terrorism to Palestinian terrorists and their families”.

The Trump administration earlier this year lifted sanctions on violent Israeli settlers who have killed Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

One leading Palestinian politician described the sanctions move as “revenge” by the US for the commitments to recognise Palestinian statehood by a growing number of countries.

The PA appeared to echo that sentiment in a statement released on Thursday.

“These campaigns have been escalating in response to the significant and successive achievements of Palestinian diplomacy,” it said.

“Particularly the recent recognitions of the State of Palestine by key countries, the successful United Nations conference in New York, and the historic declaration issued therein.”

Mustafa Barghouti, founder of the Palestinian National Initiative (PNI) which is part of the PLO, said the US was targeting the wrong side.

He told the BBC: “Trump’s administration, instead of punishing the criminals who are committing war crimes in Gaza and in the West Bank, which is Israel, is instead… punishing the victim, which is the Palestinian people.”

Israel welcomed the sanctions and thanked US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for imposing them.

“This important action by [President Trump] and his administration also exposes the moral distortion of certain countries that ran to recognise a virtual Palestinian state while turning a blind eye to its support for terror and incitement,” said foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar.

The PA has always rejected complaints around “salaries” saying the payments are stipends to the families of all Palestinian prisoners held under Israel’s military occupation, many of whom are not given any due process and are held in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Palestinians see all those detained by Israel and jailed by its military courts, which have a 99 per cent conviction rate, as political prisoners. French officials said last week the PA had expressed its willingness to end these payments in response to France’s commitment to recognise a Palestinian state.

This week’s UN conference further isolated the US in its support for the way Israel has continued the war in Gaza, which many countries criticised at the meeting.

The conference exposed a strategic vacuum being left by Washington that had traditionally led diplomatic efforts towards a viable longer-term peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The travel ban on Palestinian officials may be meant as a more limited broadside than a full range of financial sanctions. It is already a complex and lengthy process for PA and PLO officials to obtain visas to travel to the US, requiring special exemptions which are rarely given.

It is not yet clear whether the move would affect any officials working for the Palestinian mission to the United Nations in New York. The current Palestinian ambassador to the UN and his deputy are both US citizens.

A light, 4.3-magnitude earthquake struck in Southern California on Thursday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:32 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles west of Muscoy, Calif., data from the agency shows.

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 4.2.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Oral arguments over United States President Donald Trump’s power to impose tariffs have kicked off before a US appeals court after a lower court ruled he had exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping new levies on imported goods.

The appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned whether what Trump calls his “reciprocal” tariffs, announced in April, were justified by the president’s claim of emergency powers.

A panel of all the court’s active judges – eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by Republican presidents – is hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states.

The judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs.

Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.

The judges frequently interrupted Shumate, peppering him with a flurry of challenges to his arguments.

“IEEPA doesn’t even say tariffs, doesn’t even mention them,” one of the judges said.

Shumate said the law allows for “extraordinary” authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorises tariffs because it allows a president to “regulate” imports in a crisis.

The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued they are not permissible under IEEPA and the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes.

Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government’s argument that the word “regulate” includes the power to tax would be a vast expansion of presidential power.

Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government as customs duties in June quadrupled to about $27bn, a record, and through June have topped $100bn for the current fiscal year, which ends on September 30. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from extended tax cuts in a Trump-supported bill that passed and became law this month.

“Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. “To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America’s big case today.”

But economists said the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies’ ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices.

Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said the tariffs are a “regressive tax” that is making household items more expensive.

Since Trump began imposing his wave of tariffs, companies ranging from carmaker Stellantis to American Airlines, temporarily suspended financial guidance for investors, which has since started again but has been revised down. Companies across multiple industries, including Procter and Gamble, the world’s largest consumer goods brand, announced this week that it would need to raise prices on a quarter of its goods.

The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices.

Pressure outside trade

Trump has said the April tariffs, which he placed on most countries, are a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. However, in recent weeks, he’s used them to increase pressure on nontrade issues.

He hit Brazil with 50 percent tariffs over the prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a key Trump ally who is on trial for an alleged coup attempt after he lost the 2022 presidential election.

Trump also threatened Canada over its move to recognise a Palestinian state, saying a trade deal will now be “very hard”.

He said tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop fentanyl from crossing US  borders. The countries have denied that claim.

On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that are challenging Trump.

It said IEEPA, a law intended to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies, did not authorise tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The appeals court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration’s appeal. The timing of the court’s decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court.

The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authorities, such as duties on steel and aluminium. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan after smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president’s tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations while other Trump officials have said negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set a deadline of Friday for higher tariffs on countries that don’t negotiate new trade deals.

There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump’s invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California.