Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado

Gladys Vallejos Santa María, part of Fujimori’s defense (de la defensa de Fujimori). Picture: Peruvian Judiciary.  

April 14, 2008

Forty-eighth session. Peruvian army general, Willy Alberto Chirinos Chirinos continued his testimony from the previous session. In the afternoon, Gen. José Rolando Valdivia Dueñas also testified. Both witnesses were summoned by the defense.

At the start of the hearing, the Court announced that the Defense Ministry said it did not have the document offered as proof by the defense (the Directiva Única de Funcionamiento del Sistema de Inteligencia del Ejército). The Court president, César San Martín, announced that he would keep insisting until this document is found.

The most important aspects of the military officials’ testimony:

Willy Chirinos Chirinos: 

Only 23 days in the DINTE. Chirinos reiterated that he only held a position in the National Intelligence Office (DINTE) for 23 days and that in this time range he did not order any audits since this was not his function. He explained that he only asked the head of the administrative department to revise the cash desk of military officials Guillermo Ipaguirre and Humberto Cáceda Pedemonte.

He didn’t order the Cantuta crime to be investigated. However, he admitted that there were already public reports of the participation of a death squad from the Peruvian army in the Cantuta crime. The witness confirmed that he took no action to investigate these accusations because the head of the Army Intelligence Service (SIE), Gen. Enrique Oliveros Pérez, told him that the Army General Inspector was responsible for the investigation.

Military detachment was in his command while Martin Rivas was outside of Lima. Chirinos also admitted that the day after he assumed the position as DINTE director, he authorized 5,000 soles to be used for the execution of a “special intelligence operation” in the country’s interior. This “operation” comprised a group of agents under the command of then Capt. Santiago Martin Rivas. This testimony confirms that the group directed by Martin Rivas also operated in regions outside of Lima. In his testimony, ex-Colina agent Julio Chuqui Aguirre also testified on this “operation.” 

Gen. Chirinos also explained that before authorizing the allocation of the 5,000 soles to the Colina detachment, he asked for the approval of then Commander General Nicolás Hermoza Ríos, since he had recently arrived at the DINTE. (Note: Hermoza Ríos is represented by the same lawyer as Fujimori.)

However, the witness did not remember exactly who asked him for the money or who he gave it to. He assumed it was SIE director, Enrique Oliveros, but immediately clarified that he couldn’t be sure.

Meeting of army generals with Martin Rivas confirmed. Roundtable meeting? The general also testified that in June 1991, there was a meeting with more than 40 army generals present and where Martin Rivas presented a manual on strategic intelligence, created to combat Shining Path. At this meeting, generals Juan Rivero Lazo and Eduardo Fournier Coronado also gave presentations.

This testimony confirms what journalist Umberto Jara said when he testified that at this time, a so-called “roundtable meeting” (mesa redonda) was carried out in the “Pentagonito” (army headquarters) in order to prove the new counter-terrorism policy that included the application of a “dirty war.”

Witness knows about declarations prepared in military court. Gen. Chirinos also admitted that the written declarations he submitted to the trial carried out in the military court were written before the testimony was given.

He denied turning in information to Gen. Robles. Chirinos denied having given information to Gen. Rodolfo Robles regarding Colina’s existence. He also reminded that a graphology analysis, requested by the military court, discarded the accusation that he had supposedly written a letter sent to Gen. Robles. Note: Robles publicly reported the crimes committed by Colina and revealed the group’s structure and chain of command in May 1993. The members of the military court are currently condemned by the Peruvian Judiciary.

Josè Rolando Valdivia Dueñas:

Former general commander of the Second Military Region from 1990 to 1991 and head of the General Staff of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces in 1992. The questions asked to the witness were in reference to the characteristics and level of knowledge he had of army documents, such as special texts, manuals and regulations, among others.

He was examined by Gladys Vallejos Santa María, member of Fujimori’s defense team, since the principal lawyer, César Nakazaki, had to leave as he was suffering from nephritis. The defense asked the witness about the characteristics of and actions taken by the Peruvian army. However, she did not mention the Cayara case, in which Valdivia Dueñas is considered to be one of the principal actors.

Regarding his time as Division General of the Second Military Region, Valdivia said that despite being responsible for the city of Lima, he never knew that Alberto Fujimori and Vladimiro Montesinos both lived in the SIN installations. He said he was only in charge of the government palace.

The hearing will continue on Wednesday, April 15, with the testimony of Valdivia Dueñas.

To date, there is no official declaration from the Peruvian army or the Defense Ministry even though testimony from military officials has highlighted irregularities in the army and confirmed the existence of an intelligence detachment that carried out “phantom operations.” Neither has there been any comment regarding the recent 35-year prison sentence of Gen. Julio Salazar Monroe, condemned for forced disappearance.

 Local News:

RPP

The six-year prison sentence against Fujimori for the case of illegal entry has been ratified.

Correo

Cantuta sentence could be included in Fujimori’s trial

Controversy sparked over the possibility of the Cantuta ruling — sentencing 4 members of ex-military death squad Colina with 15 to 35 years in prison — being used as evidence in the human rights trial against Alberto Fujimori. However, when César Nakazaki, Fujimori’s lawyer, denied that the ruling can serve as proof, state prosecutor José Peláez Bardales acknowledged that this is correct. Though it cannot be used as proof, the ruling may serve as an “indicative element.”