Peru Código de los Niños y Adolescentes (Ley 27337, 2000) — Patria potestad, tenencia y régimen de visitas (Verbatim)

TL;DR

Peru's Código de los Niños y Adolescentes (Children and Adolescents Code, Ley No. 27337 of 7 August 2000, in force 8 August 2000, amended by Ley 29269 of 17 October 2008 to introduce tenencia compartida) regulates the child-parent relationship in Title I of Book Three. The parallel Peruvian Código Civil (Decreto Legislativo 295 of 1984), arts. 418 – 424, continues to define the substance of patria potestad as a civil-code matter, while the CNA (2000) provides the child-rights-focused operational framework for tenencia, régimen de visitas, and enforcement. Four provisions carry the operational anti-alienation weight: CNA art. 74 (content of patria potestad, framed as parents' duties); CNA art. 81 (tenencia by parental agreement or court decision — never by unilateral fact); CNA art. 84 (court factors for tenencia, including the friendly-parent factor at ©); CNA art. 88 (régimen de visitas as a right of the non-tenencia parent — and the corresponding duty on the tenencia parent to facilitate it). The Spanish text below is drawn from the consolidated El Peruano publication; the English is a working translation for research use. The Spanish original controls.

Statute — Verbatim Text

CNA art. 74 — Contenido de la Patria Potestad (Content of Parental Authority)

Spanish (consolidated text):

Son deberes y derechos de los padres que ejercen la Patria Potestad:

a) Velar por su desarrollo integral;

b) Proveer su sostenimiento y educación;

c) Dirigir su proceso educativo y capacitación para el trabajo conforme a su vocación y aptitudes;

d) Darles buenos ejemplos de vida y corregirlos moderadamente. Cuando su acción no bastare podrán recurrir a la autoridad competente;

e) Tenerlos en su compañía y recurrir a la autoridad si fuere necesario para recuperarlos;

f) Representarlos en los actos de la vida civil mientras no adquieran la capacidad de ejercicio y de responsabilidad civil;

g) Recibir ayuda de ellos atendiendo a su edad y condición y sin perjudicar su atención;

h) Administrar y usufructuar sus bienes, cuando los tuvieran;

i) En los casos de los incisos f) y h), tratándose de menores de edad, se aplican las disposiciones del Código Civil.

English (working translation):

The following are the duties and rights of the parents who exercise Patria Potestad:

(a) To watch over the child's integral development;

(b) To provide the child's sustenance and education;

© To direct the child's educational process and vocational training in accordance with the child's calling and aptitudes;

(d) To give the child good examples in life and to correct the child moderately. Where their action does not suffice, they may resort to the competent authority;

(e) To have the child in their company and to resort to the authority, if necessary, in order to recover the child;

(f) To represent the child in acts of civil life so long as the child has not acquired the capacity for exercise and civil liability;

(g) To receive assistance from the child having regard to the child's age and condition and without impairing the child's attention;

(h) To administer and enjoy the child's property, where the child has property;

(i) In the cases of items (f) and (h), where these concern minors, the provisions of the Civil Code shall apply.

Operational note: Art. 74 is framed as duties and rights — deberes y derechos — in that order. The duty-first framing follows the same civil-law lineage as Serbia PZ art. 60(1) and reads onto obstruction as a failure of the duty-primary rather than as an abuse of the right-primary. Art. 74(a) — "velar por su desarrollo integral" (watch over the child's integral development) — is the substantive standard that reads onto denigration campaigns and information starvation as breaches of the integral development duty (which includes psychological development, not merely material sustenance).

CNA art. 75 — Suspensión de la Patria Potestad (Suspension of Parental Authority)

Spanish (extracts):

La Patria Potestad se suspende en los siguientes casos:

a) Por la interdicción del padre o de la madre originada en causas de naturaleza civil;

b) Por ausencia judicialmente declarada del padre o de la madre;

c) Por darles órdenes, consejos o ejemplos que los corrompan;

d) Por permitirles la vagancia o dedicarlos a la mendicidad;

e) Por maltratarlos física o mentalmente;

f) Por negarse a prestarles alimentos;

g) Por separación o divorcio de los padres, o por invalidez del matrimonio de conformidad con los Artículos 282 y 340 del Código Civil.

English:

Patria Potestad shall be suspended in the following cases:

(a) On the interdiction of the father or mother arising from causes of a civil nature;

(b) On the judicially declared absence of the father or mother;

© For giving orders, advice or examples that corrupt them;

(d) For permitting their vagrancy or dedicating them to begging;

(e) For mistreating them physically or mentally;

(f) For refusing to provide them with alimony;

(g) On the separation or divorce of the parents, or on the annulment of the marriage in accordance with articles 282 and 340 of the Civil Code.

Operational note: Art. 75(g) is the automatic-suspension-on-separation clause that operates in the Peruvian scheme in respect of the parent with whom the child does not reside. It does not extinguish patria potestad — it suspends its exercise. The parent whose exercise is suspended retains the substance of patria potestad and specifically retains the art. 88 régimen de visitas right. The doctrinal effect is that "suspension" in the Peruvian sense is much narrower than "loss of custody" in common-law systems; the suspension is limited to the day-to-day exercise, not the underlying right.

CNA art. 81 — Tenencia (Tenencia)

Spanish (in the version consolidated with the Ley 29269 amendment of 17 October 2008):

Cuando los padres estén separados de hecho, la Tenencia de los niños, niñas o adolescentes se determina de común acuerdo entre ellos y tomando en cuenta el parecer del niño, niña o adolescente. De no existir acuerdo o si este resulta perjudicial para los hijos, la Tenencia la resolverá el juez especializado dictando las medidas necesarias para su cumplimiento, pudiendo disponer la Tenencia Compartida, salvaguardando en todo momento el interés superior del niño, niña o adolescente.

English (working translation):

Where the parents are separated in fact, the tenencia of the boys, girls or adolescents shall be determined by common agreement between them, taking into account the opinion of the boy, girl or adolescent. Should no agreement exist, or should the agreement prove harmful to the children, the tenencia shall be resolved by the specialised judge, who shall issue the measures necessary for its performance, and who may order tenencia compartida (shared tenencia), safeguarding at all times the higher interest of the boy, girl or adolescent.

Operational note: Art. 81 codifies two operational rules:

• Common-agreement route with child's opinion. The tenencia is set by parents' agreement, but the child's opinion is a mandatory input to that agreement. The child's opinion is not merely elicited by the court in a contested case; it is a mandatory input to any consensual tenencia.
• Ley 29269 tenencia compartida jurisdiction. Since the 2008 amendment, the specialised family judge has express jurisdiction to order tenencia compartida even where the parents have not agreed. The pre-2008 default was single-parent tenencia; the post-2008 default is that shared tenencia is a first-alternative option in the court's toolkit, subject to a best-interests assessment.

The article is the anchor for both consensual arrangements and contested applications, and it stands together with art. 84 (factors) and art. 88 (régimen de visitas as the residual).

CNA art. 84 — Facultades del Juez (Powers of the Judge)

Spanish (as consolidated with Ley 29269):

En caso de no existir acuerdo sobre la Tenencia, en cualquiera de sus modalidades, el juez resolverá teniendo en cuenta lo siguiente:

a) El hijo deberá permanecer con el progenitor con quien convivió mayor tiempo, siempre que le sea favorable;

b) El hijo menor de tres (3) años permanecerá con la madre; y,

c) Para el que no obtenga la Tenencia o Custodia del niño, niña o adolescente, debe señalarse un Régimen de Visitas.

En cualquiera de los supuestos, el juez priorizará el otorgamiento de la Tenencia o Custodia a quien mejor garantice el derecho del niño, niña o adolescente a mantener contacto con el otro progenitor.

English (working translation):

Where there is no agreement on tenencia, in any of its modalities, the judge shall resolve the matter having regard to the following:

(a) The child shall remain with the parent with whom the child has cohabited longer, provided that this is favourable to the child;

(b) A child under three (3) years of age shall remain with the mother; and,

© For the parent who does not obtain the tenencia or custody of the boy, girl or adolescent, a régimen de visitas (regime of visits) shall be established.

In any of the aforementioned scenarios, the judge shall prioritise the granting of tenencia or custody to the parent who best guarantees the right of the boy, girl or adolescent to maintain contact with the other parent.

Operational note: The closing paragraph of art. 84 is the explicit statutory friendly-parent factor — arguably the strongest single-sentence textual formulation in Latin American family law. The judge "priorizará" (shall prioritise) the granting of tenencia to the parent who best guarantees the right of the child to maintain contact with the other parent. Two features are distinctive:

• The factor is framed as a right of the child, not of the parent (following the CDN art. 9(3) architecture).
• The factor operates transversally across all scenarios ("En cualquiera de los supuestos") — it is not confined to the situations in (a), (b), or © but overrides all of them where they conflict with the child's contact right.

In pleading practice art. 84 is the primary Peruvian textual anchor in any tenencia dispute where obstruction is documented; the friendly-parent factor is not judge-made gloss, it is statutory text.

CNA art. 85 — Opinión del Niño, Niña o Adolescente (Opinion of the Boy, Girl or Adolescent)

Spanish:

El juez especializado debe escuchar la opinión del niño y tomar en cuenta la del adolescente.

English:

The specialised judge shall listen to the opinion of the boy or girl and shall take into account the opinion of the adolescent.

Operational note: Art. 85 codifies the CDN art. 12 participation right in domestic Peruvian tenencia proceedings. The distinction between "escuchar" (listen to) for the niño and "tomar en cuenta" (take into account) for the adolescente is deliberate: the adolescent's view has weight in the outcome, not merely audience. In alienation practice this reads onto documented obstruction as a ground for the trial court to independently assess whether the expressed view is the child's own or a product of induced influence.

CNA art. 86 — Modificación de Resoluciones (Modification of Rulings)

Spanish:

La Resolución sobre Tenencia puede ser modificada por circunstancias debidamente comprobadas. La solicitud deberá tramitarse como una nueva acción ante el juez que conoció del primer proceso. Transcurridos seis meses de la resolución originaria, salvo que esté en peligro la integridad del niño, del niña o del adolescente.

English:

The Ruling on tenencia may be modified for duly proven circumstances. The application shall be conducted as a new action before the judge who tried the first proceeding. Six months shall have elapsed from the original ruling, save where the integrity of the boy, girl or adolescent is in danger.

Operational note: Art. 86 sets a six-month cooling-off period between the original tenencia ruling and the modification application, with a safety-valve exception for cases where the child's integrity is in danger. The "circunstancias debidamente comprobadas" (duly proven circumstances) standard is a change-of-circumstances standard; documented obstruction under art. 88 constitutes such a change of circumstances and grounds a modification application at the six-month mark or earlier under the integrity exception.

CNA art. 88 — Régimen de Visitas (Regime of Visits)

Spanish:

Los padres que no ejerzan la Patria Potestad tienen derecho a visitar a sus hijos, para lo cual deberán acreditar con prueba suficiente el cumplimiento o la imposibilidad del cumplimiento de la obligación alimentaria. Si alguno de los padres hubiera fallecido, se encontrara fuera del lugar de domicilio o se desconociera su paradero, podrán solicitar el régimen de visitas los parientes hasta el cuarto grado de consanguinidad de dicho padre.

El Juez, respetando en lo posible el acuerdo de los padres, dispondrá un régimen de visitas adecuado al principio del interés superior del niño y del adolescente y podrá variarlo de acuerdo a las circunstancias, en resguardo de su bienestar.

English:

The parents who do not exercise Patria Potestad shall have the right to visit their children, for which they must prove by sufficient evidence the compliance with, or the impossibility of complying with, the alimony obligation. Should one of the parents have died, be found outside the place of domicile or should their whereabouts be unknown, the relatives up to the fourth degree of consanguinity of that parent may request the regime of visits.

The judge, respecting so far as possible the agreement of the parents, shall establish a régimen de visitas appropriate to the principle of the higher interest of the boy or girl and of the adolescent, and shall be able to vary it in accordance with the circumstances, safeguarding the child's welfare.

Operational note: Art. 88 is the substantive régimen de visitas jurisdiction. Two features:

• Alimony-linkage condition. Peruvian law conditions the exercise of the visits right on compliance with — or proof of impossibility of complying with — the alimony obligation. This is unusual in comparative terms and is a two-edged sword: it operates as a shield for non-paying non-tenencia parents (who must prove impossibility, not merely alleged inability) and, symmetrically, it constitutes an incentive for the tenencia parent not to obstruct where the non-tenencia parent is compliant. Non-payment does not extinguish the visits right; it triggers an evidentiary requirement.
• Extended-family jurisdiction. Where the non-tenencia parent has died, is absent, or is unlocatable, relatives up to the fourth degree of consanguinity have standing to request the régimen de visitas. This is the grandparent/uncle/aunt route that many comparative systems recognise informally; Peruvian law codifies it as a positive standing rule.

CNA art. 91 — Incumplimiento del Régimen de Visitas (Non-Compliance with the Regime of Visits)

Spanish:

El incumplimiento del Régimen de Visitas establecido judicialmente dará lugar a los apremios de ley y en caso de resistencia podrá originar la Variación de la Tenencia. La solicitud de Variación deberá tramitarse como una nueva acción ante el Juez que conoció del primer proceso.

English:

The non-compliance with the judicially established Regime of Visits shall give rise to the compulsions of law, and in the case of resistance may originate the Variation of the Tenencia. The application for Variation shall be conducted as a new action before the Judge who tried the first proceeding.

Operational note: Art. 91 is the Peruvian analogue of Ukraine's SKU art. 159(6) and Serbia's PZ art. 68(3) revision path: persistent non-compliance with a régimen de visitas grounds a variation of the tenencia. The statutory formulation is direct — "resistance" to the visits regime "may originate" the variation. In pleading practice the sequence is (i) contact-enforcement application under the "apremios de ley" (coercive measures of law); (ii) after documented resistance, variation-of-tenencia application under art. 91 in conjunction with the friendly-parent factor of art. 84 closing paragraph.

Structural Reading

Seven moving parts:

1. CNA art. 74 — Content of patria potestad framed as duties-and-rights, with "integral development" (74(a)) as the substantive standard.
2. CNA art. 75(g) — Automatic suspension of exercise of patria potestad on separation for the non-tenencia parent; does not extinguish the substance, does not remove the art. 88 visits right.
3. CNA art. 81 — Tenencia by parental agreement (with mandatory child's opinion) or by court decision; tenencia compartida available as a court-ordered option since Ley 29269 (2008).
4. CNA art. 84 — Court factors: prior cohabitation (84(a)); under-three maternal residence (84(b)); régimen de visitas for the non-tenencia parent (84©); and the express statutory friendly-parent factor in the closing paragraph, operating transversally across all scenarios.
5. CNA art. 85 — Child's participation right with a graduated weight (listen for the niño; take into account for the adolescente).
6. CNA art. 86 — Six-month cooling-off before modification, with integrity-in-danger exception.
7. CNA art. 88 + art. 91 — Régimen de visitas as the visits right of the non-tenencia parent; art. 91 variation-of-tenencia remedy for persistent non-compliance.

Two distinguishing features of the Peruvian scheme:

• Transversal friendly-parent factor at art. 84 closing paragraph. One of the strongest single-sentence textual formulations in Latin American family law: the judge "priorizará" tenencia to the parent who best guarantees the child's right to maintain contact with the other parent, in any of the scenarios of art. 84.
• Art. 91 explicit variation-of-tenencia remedy. Persistent non-compliance with the régimen de visitas is a direct textual ground for variation of tenencia; the practitioner does not need to construct a "change of circumstances" argument, the statute makes the connection directly.

Corte Suprema (Supreme Court) — Interpretive Line

The Corte Suprema de Justicia de la República, Sala Civil Permanente and Sala Civil Transitoria, exercises cassation jurisdiction over family matters. Case-identifiers are typically in the format Cas. NNNN-YYYY-Region. Doctrinal points on arts. 81/84/88/91:

• Casaciones on Cas. 2067-2010-Lima, Cas. 4881-2009-Amazonas, and related. The Court has read art. 84 closing paragraph as the controlling factor where obstruction is documented, overriding the prior-cohabitation preference of 84(a) in appropriate cases.
• Tenencia compartida jurisdiction post-Ley 29269. The Court has held that tenencia compartida is not the default but is a first-alternative option that the trial court must consider before defaulting to single-parent tenencia; failure to consider tenencia compartida in the reasoning is a ground of cassation where the parties or the child's interests raise it.
• Art. 91 variation as proportional to resistance. The Court reads the "resistance" trigger as requiring persistent, documented non-compliance rather than episodic breaches. The variation remedy is proportional to the pattern.
• Child's expressed refusal and induced influence. Where the trial court's tenencia decision rests on the child's expressed view under art. 85, the Court requires reasoning on the face of the judgment as to whether the view is the child's own or a product of induced influence, especially where obstruction is documented.

Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) — Framing

The Tribunal Constitucional del Perú has held that the State's obligations under the Constitution's protection of the family (Constitución art. 4) and of the child (implicit in art. 4 and elaborated by Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño arts. 3 and 9) run in parallel with the American Convention on Human Rights (Pacto de San José) and, through Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño, with the international-human-rights framework. Formally correct orders that are not enforced do not discharge the State's obligation.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights Application to Peru

Peru is a party to the American Convention on Human Rights (ratified 1978) and has accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court (1981). Relevant Article 17 (protection of the family) and Article 19 (rights of the child) jurisprudence:

• Fornerón and Daughter v Argentina (2012) — foundational IACtHR decision on the State's positive obligations to protect the parent-child relationship in the face of obstruction and administrative failure.
• Atala Riffo and Daughters v Chile (2012) — parent-child relationship protection in the context of custody disputes.
• Ramírez Escobar et al. v Guatemala (2018) — positive obligations in the family context.
• The general IACtHR positive-obligations line is applied by Peruvian courts as binding interpretive authority through the "control de convencionalidad" doctrine.

Latin American Comparative Block

• Peru — CNA (this entry). Transversal friendly-parent factor (art. 84 closing paragraph); tenencia compartida jurisdiction (art. 81 post-Ley 29269); art. 91 variation-of-tenencia remedy for resistance to visits.
• Argentina — CCyC 2015 arts. 638 – 655. See /case-law/argentina/codigo-civil-y-comercial-638-655-706-responsabilidad-parental-verbatim/. Cuidado personal compartido indistinto as the first-alternative preference of the court (art. 651 CCyC).
• Chile — Código Civil arts. 225 – 227 – 229 (post-Ley 20.680 of 2013). See /case-law/chile/codigo-civil-225-227-229-cuidado-personal-rdr-verbatim/. Cuidado personal compartido available; art. 225 friendly-parent factor.
• Colombia — Código de la Infancia y la Adolescencia (Ley 1098/2006). Custodia y cuidado personal in art. 23; representación y responsabilidad parental in art. 24.
• Mexico — Código Civil (federal + state, and CDMX). See /case-law/mexico/codigo-civil-cdmx-art-323-septimus-alienacion-parental-verbatim/. CDMX art. 323 Séptimus explicitly codifies alienación parental as a ground for loss of custody.

The Latin American block is heterogeneous by drafting tradition but convergent by outcome. The friendly-parent factor is present as a substantive best-interests factor across Peru (transversal), Argentina (in the residence choice), Chile (in art. 225), and Colombia (in art. 23); Mexico's CDMX approach uses the parental-alienation nomenclature directly. In practice these are alternative textual routes to the same operational point.

Cross-Border Framework

• Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 — Peru is a party; central authority is the Ministerio de la Mujer y Poblaciones Vulnerables (MIMP) — Dirección de Adopciones y Post Adopción.
• Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996 — Peru is a party.
• Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children (Montevideo Convention 1989) — Peru is a party; applies in cross-border cases with other Latin American States Parties.
• Bilateral cooperation — Peruvian diaspora concentrations in the United States, Spain, Italy, Argentina, Chile, and (post-2018) increasing displacement flows related to the Venezuela migration; cross-border alienation practice with each of those jurisdictions is active.

Practical Application

Motion Language (Spanish, statute-anchored)

"El demandado incumple sistemáticamente el Régimen de Visitas establecido por resolución judicial firme, en violación del Código de los Niños y Adolescentes artículo 88 y en oposición al deber de facilitar el contacto del niño con el otro progenitor implícito en el artículo 84 párrafo final. Dicho incumplimiento constituye 'resistencia' en los términos del artículo 91 del CNA. El demandante solicita al juzgado especializado: (i) aplicar los apremios de ley por incumplimiento del Régimen de Visitas conforme al artículo 91 del CNA; (ii) disponer la Variación de la Tenencia conforme al artículo 91 del CNA, en aplicación del principio del interés superior del niño y del artículo 84 párrafo final del CNA (progenitor que mejor garantice el contacto con el otro); (iii) subsidiariamente, disponer la Tenencia Compartida conforme al artículo 81 del CNA en su modificatoria de la Ley 29269."

English (working translation for pleading-support purposes)

"The respondent systematically breaches the Regime of Visits established by a final judicial ruling, in violation of Children and Adolescents Code art. 88 and in opposition to the duty to facilitate the child's contact with the other parent implicit in art. 84 closing paragraph. This non-compliance constitutes 'resistance' within the terms of CNA art. 91. The applicant requests that the specialised court: (i) apply the compulsions of law for non-compliance with the Regime of Visits pursuant to CNA art. 91; (ii) order the Variation of the Tenencia pursuant to CNA art. 91, in application of the principle of the higher interest of the child and of CNA art. 84 closing paragraph (parent who best guarantees contact with the other); (iii) as an alternative, order Tenencia Compartida pursuant to CNA art. 81 as amended by Ley 29269."

Pleading Sequence

1. Establish the duties-first framing via CNA art. 74 — obstruction is a failure of duty, not merely an abuse of right.
2. Where a régimen de visitas is in force, document the non-compliance under CNA art. 88.
3. Invoke the "apremios de ley" (coercive measures) under CNA art. 91.
4. Where the pattern is persistent, seek variation of tenencia directly under CNA art. 91.
5. Reason the friendly-parent factor expressly under CNA art. 84 closing paragraph as the transversal controlling factor.
6. As alternative relief, plead for tenencia compartida under CNA art. 81 (post-Ley 29269).
7. Where the child's expressed view is invoked against the applicant, plead the induced-influence assessment requirement under the corte suprema line reading CNA art. 85.
8. Anchor the IACHR layer with Fornerón and Daughter v Argentina (2012) and the general positive-obligations line.

Citing Posts on antialienate.com

Post	URL
Peru + Andean PA overview	https://antialienate.com/blog/peru-andean-parental-alienation
Latin American friendly-parent statutes	https://antialienate.com/blog/latin-american-friendly-parent-statutes
Article 8 ECHR + IACHR PA framework	https://antialienate.com/blog/echr-iachr-parental-alienation
International custody battles — cross-border rights	https://antialienate.com/blog/international-custody-battles-your-rights
Hague 1980 and Latin American practice	https://antialienate.com/blog/hague-1980-latam-parental-alienation

Sources

• Código de los Niños y Adolescentes (Ley 27337, texto actualizado) — https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/normaslegales/codigo-de-los-ninos-y-adolescentes-ley-n-27337-1049364-1/
• Ley 29269 que modifica los artículos 81 y 84 del Código de los Niños y Adolescentes (Tenencia Compartida) — https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/normaslegales/ley-que-modifica-los-articulos-81-y-84-del-codigo-de-los-ni-ley-n-29269-249553-1/
• Código Civil (Decreto Legislativo 295, arts. 418 – 424) — https://spij.minjus.gob.pe/
• Constitución Política del Perú — https://www.congreso.gob.pe/constitucionyreglamento/
• Corte Suprema de Justicia — https://www.pj.gob.pe/
• Tribunal Constitucional del Perú — https://www.tc.gob.pe/
• MIMP — Dirección de Adopciones y Post Adopción (Hague 1980 central authority) — https://www.gob.pe/mimp
• Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño — https://www.ohchr.org/es/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
• Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos — https://www.corteidh.or.cr/

---

By Alan Markson. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Disclaimer. This is a research summary of Peruvian statute text with a working English translation. It is not legal advice, it is not an official translation, and it is not a substitute for a Peruvian family-law abogado (abogado especializado en derecho de familia). The Spanish text at the El Peruano official publication is the authoritative source; where the working English rendering diverges from the Spanish original, the Spanish controls. Case-number identifiers in the Corte Suprema and Tribunal Constitucional sections must be verified against the pj.gob.pe case-law publication before pleading.