Just for the record, I want to state that in no way do I actually advocate using the law against Fujimoristas, or anyone else for that matter. As a civil libertarian, the laws against apology have always struck me as uncommonly silly, as Justice Stewart might have said. The law as it is written ignores the enormous difference between saying something should be done and actually doing it, a difference that should be plain to see. However, in demanding that the law only be applied towards speech that has some sort of mesurable effect on “plurality, tolerance, and the search for consensus,” the Tribunal Constitucional seems to have recognized that difference.

Cómo usted señala en el artículo 316 del Codigo Penal peruano se establece el delito de apología.
Si bien en Perú no conocemos mucho desarrollo doctrinario respecto a este delito, el Tribunal Constitucional, ha hechos un desarrollo jurisprudencial interesante.
En este sentido, en la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional del expediente 00010-2002, sobre Proceso de Inconstitucionalidad, manifestó en el páragrafo 88 los límites a este delito:
“a) Que la exaltación se refiera a un acto terrorista ya realizado; b) Que cuando la apología se refiera a la persona que haya cometido el delito, esta debe tener la condición de condenada por sentencia firme; c) Que el medio utilizado por el apologista sea capaz de lograr la publicidad exigida por el tipo penal, es decir, que debe tratarse de una vía idónea para propalar el elogio a un número indeterminado de personas; y, d) Que la exaltación afecte las reglas democráticas de pluralidad, tolerancia y búsqueda de consenso. ”
Si bien estos límites al poder sancionatorio del Estado se establacieron frente a la apología al terrorismo, pueden extenderse, frente al delito de apología a cualquier delito.
En el caso concreto hay dos requisitos que no se cumplen según lo establecido por el Tribunal Contitucional:
1. Para ser apología la exaltación debe ser al hecho en si, en este caso, al allanamiento. Hasta ahora no hemos escuchado a algún simpatizante de Fujimori, decir que estuvo bien que se cometa y que se exalte este delito.
2. La persona que haya cometido el delito, debe tener sentencia firme. Lo cual en el caso de Fujimori, aún no la tiene, hasta que no se resuelva la apelación.
Debido a esto, en el caso de los simpatizantes de Fujimori, no se les puede imputar delito de apología.

Atentamente,
Equipo de Fujimoriontrial

I don’t know if you even read these comments, but if so, I have a question about Peruvian law.

As you may know, Article 316 of the Criminal Code of Peru reads as follows:

“El que, públicamente, hace la apología de un delito o de la persona que haya sido condenada como su autor o partícipe, será reprimido con pena privativa de libertad no menor de uno ni mayor de cuatro años.

“Si la apología se hace de delito contra la seguridad y tranquilidad públicas, contra el Estado y la defensa nacional, o contra los Poderes del Estado y el orden constitucional, la pena será no menor de cuatro ni mayor de seis años.”

My translation:

“He who publically makes apology for a crime or for a person who has been sentenced as its author or participant, shall be punished by the privation of his liberty for not less than one nor more than four years.

“If the apology is of a crime against security and public tranquility, against the state and national defense, or against the powers of the state and constitutional order, the penalty shall be not less than for nor more than six years.”

Fujimori relied on this law to jail Sendero sympathizers and shut down El Diario, the Sendero newspaper.

However, at least as I read it, Article 316 makes it illegal to apologize for anyone who has been sentenced for a crime, not just those who have been convicted of terrorism. Fujimori has been sentenced to jail. Is it not, then, technically illegal to speak well of Fujimori? Should Fujimori be convicted on all counts, would the law then not permit the arrest en masse of Fujimoristas?

Also, several of the crimes for which Fujimori is on trial to relate to undermining the “constitutional order.” Perhaps, then, Fujimoristas should be given enhanced punishment of four to six years.

I understand that there is no way that the Peruvian government is going to round up everyone who supports Fujimori in the same manner that it rounded up people who supported Sendero. Nor should it.

I wonder, however, if the law would at least put Fujimorista legislators in an odd position in which they could be censured for violating the law if they ever said that any of the acts for which Fujimori is on trial was justified.

I’d be interested in reading your opinion on all this,

Michael Baney

Cano claims that Fujimori can be given 30 years in jail for an act of omission, which would be not stopping Grupo Colina. Is that true? I know that Fujimori’s lawyers have been wrangling over the difference between an “intellectual author” and a “material participant,” and claim that authors can’t be punished as harshly as participants, or something to that effect.

What exactly must be proved in this trial to send Fujimori up the river for thirty years? Must he have actively planned the massacres in question, could he just have participated in them by authorizing them, or could he even be jailed for failing to prevent them?