St Lucia’s Olympic champion Julien Alfred wins the women’s 100m at the Diamond League Final in Zurich as Jamaica’s Tia Clayton comes second and Britain’s Dina Asher-Smith third.
WATCH MORE: Hodgkinson cruises to 800m win in Lausanne
Available to UK users only.
Boluarte, Peru’s first female president, has faced investigations into protest-related deaths and alleged illicit enrichment.
The Constitutional Court of Peru has paused investigations into Dina Boluarte until her term ends in 2026, citing her position as the country’s sitting president.
On Tuesday, the court suspended probes led by the public prosecutor’s office that looked into alleged misconduct under Boluarte.
“The suspended investigations will continue after the end of the presidential term,” the ruling explained.
One of the most significant probes had to do with Boluarte’s response to the protests that erupted in Peru in December 2022, after the embattled president at the time, Pedro Castillo, attempted to dissolve Congress.
Instead, Castillo was impeached, removed from office and imprisoned, with critics calling his actions an attempted coup d’etat.
His removal, in turn, prompted months of intense public backlash: Thousands of protesters blocked roads and led marches in support of the left-wing leader.
Boluarte, who took over the presidency, declared a state of emergency in response, and the subsequent clashes between the police and protesters killed more than 60 people and left hundreds injured.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that, in certain parts of the country, “the disproportionate, indiscriminate, and lethal use of force was a major element of the State response to the protests”.
It noted that “a significant number of victims were not even involved in the protests”.
In January 2023, Attorney General Patricia Benavides launched a probe into the actions of Boluarte and her ministers. By November of that year, Benavides had filed a constitutional complaint, accusing Boluarte of causing death and injury to protesters.
The public prosecutor’s office later set aside part of the investigation, which delved into whether Boluarte’s actions amounted to “genocide”.
Boluarte has denied any wrongdoing and instead called the protest probe a distraction from the attorney general’s own public scandals.
But Boluarte has continued to face probes into other aspects of her presidency.
Police in 2024 raided her home and the presidential palace as part of the “Rolex case”, an investigation prompted by media reports that Boluarte owned multiple luxury watches and high-end jewellery that were beyond her means to purchase. Critics have accused her of seeking illicit enrichment.
Boluarte, however, said her hands were “clean”, and Congress denied motions to impeach her over the “Rolex case”.
Another investigation looked into her absence from office in 2023, when Boluarte said she had to undergo a “necessary and essential” medical procedure on her nose — though critics have said it was a cosmetic procedure.
Her absence, they argue, was therefore a dereliction of duty, done without notifying Congress. In that case, too, Boluarte has denied the charges.
Peru has weathered much instability in its government: Boluarte is the sixth president in seven years, and virtually all of Peru’s presidents have faced criminal investigations, if not convictions, in the last quarter century.
Boluarte, however, had petitioned the Constitutional Court to stop the investigations until her term is over.
She is set to exit her office on July 28, 2026, after calling for a new general election in March. She has faced public pressure to resign since taking over for Castillo in December 2022.
Peruvian President Dina Boluarte has signed into law a controversial piece of legislation that would shield the military, police and other government-sanctioned forces from prosecution for human rights abuses committed during the country’s decades-long internal conflict.
On Wednesday, Boluarte held a signing ceremony at the presidential palace in Lima, where she defended the amnesty law as a means of honouring the sacrifices made by government forces.
“This is a historic day for our country,” she said. “It brings justice and honour to those who stood up to terrorism.”
But human rights groups and international observers have condemned the bill as a violation of international law — not to mention a denial of justice for the thousands of survivors who lived through the conflict.
From 1980 to 2000, Peru experienced a bloody conflict that pitted government forces against left-wing rebel groups like the Shining Path.
Both sides, however, committed massacres, kidnappings and assaults on unarmed civilians, with the death toll from the conflict climbing as high as 70,000 people.
Up until present, survivors and family members of the deceased have continued to fight for accountability.
An estimated 600 investigations are currently under way, and 156 convictions have been achieved, according to the National Human Rights Coordinator, a coalition of Peruvian human rights organisations.
Critics fear those ongoing probes could be scuttled under the wide-ranging protections offered by the new amnesty law, which stands to benefit soldiers, police officers and members of self-defence committees who face legal proceedings for which no final verdict has been rendered.
The legislation also offers “humanitarian” amnesty for those convicted over the age of 70.
Peru, however, falls under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which ordered the country’s government to “immediately suspend the processing” of the law on July 24.
The court ruled against past amnesty laws in Peru. In cases of severe human rights violations, it ruled that there can be no sweeping amnesty nor age limits for prosecution.
In 1995, for instance, Peru passed a separate amnesty law that would have prevented the prosecution of security forces for human rights abuses between 1980 and that year. But it was greeted with widespread condemnation, including from United Nations experts, and it was eventually repealed.
In the case of the current amnesty law, nine UN experts issued a joint letter in July condemning its passage as a “clear breach of [Peru’s] obligations under international law”.
But at Wednesday’s signing ceremony, President Boluarte reiterated her position that such international criticism was a violation of her country’s sovereignty and that she would not adhere to the Inter-American Court’s decision.
“Peru is honouring its defenders and firmly rejecting any internal or external interference,” Boluarte said.
“We cannot allow history to be distorted, for perpetrators to pretend to be victims, and for the true defenders of the homeland to be branded as enemies of the nation they swore to protect.”
Peru’s armed forces, however, have been implicated in a wide range of human rights abuses. Just last year, 10 soldiers were convicted of carrying out the systematic rape of Indigenous and rural women and girls.
Drawing from Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, the human rights group Amnesty International estimates that the country’s armed forces and police were responsible for 37 percent of the deaths and disappearances that happened during the conflict.
They were also credited with carrying out 75 percent of the reported instances of torture and 83 percent of sexual violence cases.
Francisco Ochoa, a victims’ advocate, spoke to Al Jazeera last month about his experiences surviving the 1985 Accomarca massacre as a 14-year-old teenager.
He had been in the corn fields preparing to sow seeds when soldiers arrived and rounded up the residents of his small Andean village.
Despite having no evidence linking the villagers to rebel groups, the soldiers locked many of them in their huts, fired into the structures and set them ablaze.
As many as 62 people were killed, including Ochoa’s mother, eight-year-old brother and six-year-old sister.
“The first thing I remember from that day is the smell when we arrived,” Ochoa, now 54, told journalist Claudia Rebaza. “It smelled like smouldering flesh, and there was no one around.”
When asked how he and other survivors felt about the amnesty law, Ochoa responded, “Outraged and betrayed”.
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.
This story is full of spoilers for “The Last of Us” Season 2, especially the finale.
Season 2 of HBO’s “The Last of Us” ends with the ultimate cliffhanger (seriously, if you have not seen and do not want to know, please stop reading right now): An Abby (Kaitlyn Dever) vs. Ellie (Bella Ramsey) face-off in which only Abby has a weapon. As Ellie cries out, a gun goes off and … we are sent back in time to Day 1, Abby’s viewpoint.
So if any of y’all were looking for some kind of closure, emotional or narrative, well, you have got a bit of a wait.
The episode itself played out like a mini-epic. Picking up where last week’s mostly flashback episode ended, Ellie returns to the theater to find Jesse (Young Mazino) tending to Dina (Isabela Merced), who got an arrow through the leg, courtesy of the Seraphites, in Episode 5. When Dina refuses an anesthetic slug of alcohol during the proceedings, Jesse gets the wind up. As he and Ellie then set out to find Tommy (Gabriel Luna), he (kinda) tricks Ellie into revealing Dina’s pregnancy.
That admission only adds fuel to the tension between Ellie, with her obsessive need to make Abby pay for killing Joel, and Jesse, who is angry at Ellie for putting her personal desire for revenge above the needs of the community back in Jackson. High words are spoken before the two split up, with Jesse going to search for Tommy, Ellie to continue tracking Abby.
After a frankly weird hero’s journey in which she braves stormy seas and faces execution by the Seraphites, Ellie makes it to the abandoned aquarium to find Abby. There she surprises Mel (Ariela Barer) and Owen (Spencer Lord), two of the former Fireflies who were with Abby when she killed Joel (Pedro Pascal). When Owen reaches for a gun, Ellie fires, shooting him through the throat. The bullet also, alas, hits Mel, who reveals her advanced pregnancy and, as she bleeds out, begs Ellie to cut the baby out. Horrified, Ellie can do no such thing, and Mel dies even as Jesse and Tommy show up.
Ellie (Bella Ramsey) also has to battle the elements in “The Last of Us” Season 2 finale.
(Liane Hentscher / HBO)
It’s a powerful and terrible scene. Upon their return to the safety of the theater, Ellie is, understandably, very shaken and appears to be rethinking the wisdom of her revenge tour when Abby shows up and kills Jesse (sob). As Ellie takes responsibility for Mel and Owen’s deaths and struggles to explain, we see her original fury reflected in Abby’s face. She points the gun at Ellie, a shot rings out and the story resets on Day 1 of the outbreak.
The Times’ Lorraine Ali, Tracy Brown and Mary McNamara discuss the finale and the season that came before it.
McNamara: As someone who has not played the game but has watched a lot of television, I am going to make the wild guess that Ellie is not dead. Not that I expect to discover this for quite a while, as the final scene indicates that Season 3 will be giving us Abby’s backstory before bringing us (one hopes) back to the theater and the series’ present.
This finale, like much of what preceded it, felt both rushed and oddly slow. This season has been very much (and at times too obviously) focused on Ellie’s growth, as a person and a main character. And with the exception of her love for Dina, I’m not sure how much is there. That Ellie is relentless has been made abundantly clear; ditto the fact that she is confused about her purpose in life. But I admit I was relieved when Jesse read her the riot act about how this mission of vengeance put so many people in danger, including and especially the woman Ellie claims to love.
The stakes in Season 1 were very clear — get Ellie to where she can be used to make a cure — even if they were subverted in the end. This season, the main tension appears to be more about Ellie becoming mature enough to accept that not all heroes have to make dramatic sacrifices or win a blood feud.
That’s a fine message, but it required a lot of attention on her emotional growth, which honestly seemed to occur mostly in the final few minutes, while offering only tantalizing slivers of the larger forces around her. How do you introduce a crazy cult and not offer any real explanation for it? How do you enlist Jeffrey Wright (or for that matter, Hettienne Park) as WLF commanders and then give them so little to do? Not to mention poor Mel and Owen, who are sacrificed, apparently, merely to broaden Ellie’s worldview.
I realize that some of this is about staying true(ish) to the game, which I understand offers different viewpoints, but even with the action-packed finale, it’s hard not to feel like Season 2 was simply a preamble to Season 3. What do you think, “Last of Us” player Tracy Brown?
Isaac (Jeffrey Wright) remains a mystery in “The Last of Us” Season 2 finale.
(Liane Hentscher / HBO)
Brown: I have to agree with you, Mary — the finale’s pacing felt a bit awkward as it barreled its way toward the perspective shift into Abby’s side of the story that will likely be the focus of Season 3, while also trying to pack in familiar moments from the game. I also think you’re feeling a version of the confusion and frustration that “The Last of Us: Part II” players felt when Ellie and Abby’s showdown at the theater abruptly cut to something completely different and you’re suddenly being forced to play as the character you’ve spent hours trying to hunt down.
In the game, up until that cliffhanger, you’ve primarily been playing as Ellie outside of a few sequences before Joel’s death. Players don’t learn much about the Washington Liberation Front or the Seraphites or their conflict until they get to Abby’s side of the story. And when you’re playing a game, you’re used to knowing only as much as the character you’re playing as and learning more about any enemies as you go. You’re also much more mission-oriented — as great as a game’s story is, you’re main focus is gathering as much information as you can to accomplish your goal. The mission and the themes are a bit more straightforward in the first “Last of Us” game.
In “The Last of Us: Part II,” there’s a bait and switch. You start the game’s main storyline playing as Ellie, with the assumption that your mission is to get revenge, only to find yourself suddenly playing as Abby. Because “Part II” is more about an exploration of trauma and cycles of violence, Abby and her story have to be more than something you learn about as Ellie. In the game, the perspective shift is essential and revelatory because, navigating any discomfort while playing as Abby is part of the experience. It’s something dependent on the unique way players become attached to characters they play as.
In television, stories can unfold differently. Because audiences are not playing as Ellie, they can be introduced to Abby’s ties to the events in Salt Lake City and characters like Isaac (Wright) much sooner than in the game because we’re not locked into one point of view. And that freedom brings its own challenges. I should also mention that as acclaimed as the franchise is, “Part II” was a bit more divisive among players too. Lorraine, what did you think about the finale?
Ali: You’ve both expressed many of the same feelings I have about the finale and about Season 2 in general. Does that mean I can have the night off? If I took my cues from Ellie, I’d do just that. Ellie predictably put her own interests above everyone and everything else, which didn’t leave much room for an interesting story twist or character growth in the Season 2 finale. To Mary’s point about pacing, Episode 7 spent precious time hammering away on what we already know: Ellie’s need for revenge put everyone who cares about her in danger. Poor Dina. The only way Jesse was getting that crossbow bolt out of her leg was pulling it straight through. The credits are nearly ready to roll by the time Ellie realizes her single-minded quest is as barbaric as Abby’s killing of Joel, but not before she gunned down a pregnant woman.
Tracy, I wonder if the trouble the show had picking out where to spend its time is partly a game-to-TV adaptation problem. You mentioned the shifting perspectives in the game, of players seeing the world through Ellie’s and then Abby’s eyes. But serieswatchers are a passive audience and that left the show with a lot of options to tackle and/or leave out. The finale’s hopscotching from scenario to scenario appeared like it was born out of duty rather than purpose. Ellie’s choppy boat ride, the rogue wave washing her ashore, her capture and release at the hands of the cult — all were colorful and dramatic but felt abrupt and even extraneous to the story. That said, the decaying Costco storefront was a nice touch even if it was totally random.
Lastly, I loved the Seattle-centric soundtrack and poster choices of grunge bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. But a lot of great female bands came out of the Pacific Northwest too, and I can’t help but feel the feral screams of 7 Year B— would have been a perfect soundtrack for Ellie’s rage. So what do we all think about the last moments of the finale, which set us up for Season 3?
Jesse (Young Mazino) is not too pleased with Dina (Isabela Merced) and Ellie (Bella Ramsey) in “The Last of Us” Season 2 finale.
McNamara: I love the granular music criticism, Lorraine! For the life of me, I could not figure out what to make of Ellie’s brief capture by the Seraphites, which felt a lot like finale padding — don’t forget the crazy cult in the woods about which we know nothing yet! — or even her “Twelfth Night”-like near-drowning. (“What country, friends, is this?”)
I can see how the switch from Ellie to Abby might work in the game — you’ll never understand your “enemy” until you walk a mile in her shoes — but for a series to flip viewpoints seasonally (as opposed to episodically) is a big ask for viewers, especially those not familiar with the game.
With the exception of Ellie and Dina’s burgeoning relationship, much of this season felt like a big teaser reel for Season 3. Ramsey is a talented actor, but the task of carrying the show by portraying a recognizable teen on a complicated existential journey in the middle of a life-or-death adventure tale is a formidable one, especially without the benefit of an older, wiser guide/co-star. But then no one said adapting a game to a series would be easy.
As for the final moments, well, as I said, I don’t think Ellie’s dead, though Jesse certainly is, which is tragic — he and Tommy were the real heroes of Season 2. I am intrigued by the “Day 1“-ness of the final scene. I always like when postapocalyptic tales take the time to explain how it all went down. So I will be counting the months to see what happens next, which I suppose is what every TV writer wants.
Brown: I’ll refrain from spoiling Ellie’s fate here, even though the game with the answer came out in 2020! But I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say that the cut to Abby’s “Seattle Day 1” signals the show is likely sticking to the structure of the game — meaning Season 3 will tell Abby’s story, following the former Firefly for the same three days that Ellie has spent in the Emerald City leading up to their violent reunion. If the show stays true to the game, we won’t be seeing what happens to Ellie following that cliffhanger gunshot until the story reaches that part of “Day 3” from Abby’s perspective. Sorry, Mary!
I was a bit surprised when I realized the show was going to follow this same route, especially after it introduced Abby’s backstory so early. One of the perks of television is that it’s possible to follow the multiple storylines of more than one character, so I thought the show might try weaving Ellie and Abby’s narratives a bit more. One benefit of following the game’s road map, though, is there are distinct breaks in the overall story to build seasons around. (I’m calling it now that the Season 3 finale will be around their clash at the theater again.)
Back to Lorraine’s point, I do think that some of the struggles of this season comes down to the choices around which game moments to give space to. Some game-to-TV moments were very successful, like Joel taking Ellie to the museum for her birthday in Episode 6. Others, like Ellie taking that boat to get to the aquarium, were a bit less successful. Ellie getting tossed around those waves was a great nod to that sequence in the game, but on the show, it wasn’t as clear why she even needed to hop on the boat to begin with.
We’ve all mentioned how Dina and Ellie’s relationship has been one of the highlights of this season. Without spoiling anything, what I am most curious about is how Ellie’s excitement around Dina’s pregnancy and becoming a dad is going to affect the story to come. How about you, Lorraine, is there hope for “The Last of Us” to win you back?
Ali: There is always hope, Tracy, even in the blighted, rotting, fungus-filled world of “The Last of Us.” My meager hope for the Season 3 opener? That Ellie emerges a survivor, and her comeback scene is set to Pearl Jam’s “Alive.”