Peru has decided not to allege fraud and conspiracy claims against Yale University in its lawsuit over objects removed from Machu Picchu in the early part of the 20th century. One of the main points of contention in the dispute is whether this action is timely. It surely would have if brought soon after the objects were removed, but Peru will either have to justify waiting decades to bring a claim, or convince a court that Peruvian law applies—perhaps under the lex originis rule.
For background on the dispute see these posts.
From the AP:
The withdrawal of some claims comes after Peru hired new lawyers who said the move would simplify the case and “facilitate resolution” of the dispute. Yale’s lawyers had warned that the claims violated civil procedures prohibiting frivolous arguments.
The fraud allegations that were withdrawn accused Yale of intending to deceive Peru by promising to return the artifacts and conspiring with Bingham to retain the artifacts unlawfully by fraudulently assuring that Yale would return the artifacts when Peru demanded.
“Peru has dropped all claims of Yale having intentionally done anything wrong,” said Jonathan Freiman, Yale’s attorney. “We’re glad that they have done so, but we think the rest of the case is equally misguided and should be withdrawn, as well.” . . .
“Yale has wholly betrayed Peru’s trust and confidence,” the lawsuit states. “Yale has exploited its holding of the Machu Picchu collection for commercial and financial gain at the expense of the interests of the Peruvian people and in violation of the fiduciary obligations that Yale owes Peru.”
- John Christoffersen, Peru lifts some Machu Picchu claims against Yale, AP, March 10, 2010 (last visited Mar 10, 2010).
