On September 5, Peru’s newly elected hard-right president, Keiko Fujimori, declared a state of emergency in a 200-meter radius around five of the country’s most dangerous prisons. This measure, which lasts for sixty days, allows the national police and military to conduct “permanent operations” aimed at confiscating weapons, preventing escapes, and disrupting communication among inmates. These operations include searching visitors for mobile phones and potentially destroying telecommunications antennas located near the prisons, according to Peru’s Ministry of Justice. The declaration suspends certain constitutional rights, including freedom of movement, assembly, and personal security, as reported by the progressive newspaper La República. The state of emergency has drawn mixed reactions from the media. Right-wing outlets have largely supported the move, viewing it as a necessary step to combat organized crime in Peru’s most violent prisons. However, opposition news platforms like Hildebrandt en sus Trece have raised concerns, noting that the expanded powers given to the military resemble tactics used during the 1990s under the authoritarian rule of Keiko Fujimori’s father, former president Alberto Fujimori. Critics argue that these measures could lead to abuses of power and erode civil liberties, echoing the controversial counter-subversive strategies of the past. Peru has long struggled with high levels of crime and corruption, particularly within its prison system, where overcrowding and gang activity are significant issues. Fujimori’s government has pledged to crack down on criminal networks, but the declaration of a state of emergency has sparked debates about the balance between security and individual rights. The move also reflects the broader political shift toward more authoritarian governance in the country, as the new administration seeks to implement stricter law-and-order policies. The use of military forces in civilian areas is a sensitive issue in Peru, especially given the country’s history of military intervention in politics. While supporters argue that such measures are essential to restore order, critics warn of the potential for overreach and the risk of repeating past mistakes. As the state of emergency unfolds, the international community and human rights organizations are closely watching to ensure that these operations are conducted transparently and in accordance with international standards.