Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado

Accountability in Action :: Rindiendo cuentas

Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado random header image

Former general says only Hermoza Ríos could authorize entry to La Cantuta University

April 20th, 2008 · 1 Comment

Fujimori with defense lawyer César Nakazaki (Fujimori con su abogado César Nakazaki). Picture from the Peruvian judiciary. 

April 18, 2008

Fiftieth Session. Former military official Luis Salazar Monroe, brother of Julio Salazar Monroe, was called by the defense to testify.

 

The most important parts of his testimony were:

 

1990. Head of the Army Intelligence Office (DINTE).

 

1. Change in intelligence strategy. There was a change in the intelligence strategy beginning in 1990. The National Intelligence Service (SIN) dominated the military realm and Alberto Fujimori, as president, assumed a much more active presence.

2. Head of the DINTE. The witness did not find out that members of the DINTE and agents of the Army Intelligence Service (SIE) went to work at the Counter-Terrorism Office (DIRCOTE). He claimed he did not have meetings to coordinate with the DIRCOTE. However, other testimony in this trial has indicated that the DIRCOTE and DINTE worked together beginning in 1990.

 

3. Counter-Terrorism Directive was not managed by Fujimori. The witness said that it was not Fujimori’s job as president to give directives for the counter-subversion strategy.

Luis Salazar Monroe said that this job only corresponded to the Join Command of the Armed Forces or the Command of Operations on the Internal Front (COFI). When the witness was shown the unconventional war manual, he claimed he had not seen it before and said that this would not be considered a directive, which contradicts what Fujimori has declared previously.

1991 – Second Commander of the Second Military Region (areas included in this region: Lima, Ica, Cerro de Pasco, Huancavelica and Ayacucho).

1. Barrios Altos. No investigation was carried out for this crime since the military was not sure who the people responsible could be (the witness never found out about the various reports by the media that suggested a possible military squad). Furthermore, since the police force was in charge of the investigation, the witness preferred to not intervene.

1992. Commander General of the Second Military Region

1. La Cantuta Murders. As commander general, Luis Salazar Monroe found out about the Cantuta murders through the media and didn’t order any investigation since they didn’t know who the authors of the crime were.

Neither does the witness remember that La Cantuta University and the victims’ family members requested a writ of habeas corpus in order to open a trial for the murders (for which the witness had to give declarations before the Peruvian judiciary); however, he does not remember any of this.

 

2. Hermoza Ríos, the only person who could authorize a military detachment’s entry into La Cantuta. The witness claimed that at the time of the crime, Nicolás Hermoza Ríos (whose legal representative is César Nakazaki, the same lawyer of Alberto Fujimori) as president of the Joint Command was the only person who could authorize the entry of a military detachment to La Cantuta University.

 

3. He doesn’t remember anything regarding human rights violations. According to the former military general, there was complete respect for human rights. As commander general of a military region, he had no knowledge of attacks against lawyer Augusto Zuñiga Paz, the attack against inhabitants of Chuschi, he doesn’t know that military official Collins Collantes, was sentenced, is unaware of the disappearance of candidates in Huancapi and the investigation carried out by the military.

Regarding these crimes, the witness said that while he was informed of everything related to how human rights were respected, he was never informed that these events had occurred nor does he remember anything.

 

1992 – 1995. Military and defense attaché in the United States until 1995.

1. Luis Salazar Monroe reported to the DINTE, he had a diplomatic passport and received a special bonus, but does not remember the exact amount of the bonus.

2.  He said that as a Peruvian military and defense attaché he does not remember having known about Abimael Guzmán’s capture or about the “Peace Accord” because it was not his job. He only found out “about something on how the counter-subversive war was going.”

3.  Witness remembers that he did not receive money to pay Fujimori’s children’s universities. He denied having received extra money from the Peruvian state in order to pay the studies of Fujimori’s children in US universities.

 

1996 – 2000 Advisor for disarmament issues. Diplomatic position before the United Nations in New York, with a  salary of about US$5,000 monthly.

1. The witness does not remember that during this time, his brother Eduardo Salazar Monroe held important positions in Fujimori’s administration, such as manager of development issues in the Presidential Ministry (ministry that no longer exists, initially created to give social assistance).

For the next hearings, the following witness have been summoned to testify:

1.     Monday: Pablo Armando Carmona Acha.

2.     Wednesday: Arnaldo Velarde Ramírez, president of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces in 1991, succeeded by Hermoza Ríos.

3.    Friday: Petronio Fernández Dávila, head of the Military Strategy Command in Ayacucho in 1990, tried for forced disappearance.

Trial against Vladimiro Montesinos

Apart from the criminal trial against Alberto Fujimori, the Third Special Criminal Court has been presiding over the trial of ex-presidential advisor and “key part” of the National Intelligence Service, Vladimiro Montesinos Torres.

On April 15, 2008, Alberto Fujimori was summoned to testify in Montesinos’ trial; however, Fujimori’s defense announced that the former president would not testify as this could be incriminating for him.

On April 18, the court trying Montesinos received the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and Montesinos’ defense, regarding the importance of Fujimori’s testimony. Additionally, Montesinos himself spoke out, arguing that Fujimori must testify:

“Your honor, nobody should be exempt from testifying as a witness and collaborating with justice in order to clarify the events for which another person is being tried. This gentleman [Alberto Fujimori] must come to testify here; there is no legal impediment for him to do it.”

Thus, though Fujimori has refused to testify on the crimes of his formerly trusted adviser, Montesinos has requested his testimony, which could consequently affect what Montesinos will testify in Fujimori’s trial.

It is important to remember that up till now in the trial against Fujimori, all of the military generals implicated in human rights violations have been witnesses summoned by the defense and have tried to avoid implicating Fujimori in any crime. Fujimori’s defense is also representing ex-director of the SIN, Julio Salazar Monroe and former Commander General of the Peruvian army, Nicolás Hermoza Ríos. 

Tags: · , , , , ,

1 response so far ↓

  • 1 Felix Gamboa // Apr 22, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    L SESION 18 ABR 08
    Como lo pueden observar los lectores de este portal, los testigos anteriores así como el Gral. Luis Salazar, viene confirmando mis comentarios referidos a todos los aspectos del proceso de actividades en el campo militar, en consecuencia no voy a repetir estos temas e invito a los lectores a tomar conocimiento de ellos, leyendo los comentarios a las sesiones pasadas. Al final pueden obtener sus conclusiones.
    El Gral de División Luis Salazar, así como todos los oficiales de este grado quienes pueden hablar con conocimiento de causa, nos da cuenta tajantemente de las responsabilidades de cada elemento del sistema de defensa nacional (aparte de las leyes al respecto que son sumamente claras y precisas), así reafirma que “el Comando Conjunto de las FFAAA emite su Directiva en base a la Directiva de Gobierno para la Pacificación, formulada en el Consejo de Defensa Nacional, no existe otra forma de comunicarse con las FFAA, puede emitirse directivas complementarias, cuando existen otras disposiciones a dictarse por razones especificas, como el caso de las emitidas para preservar los Derechos Humanos”, materializada con la Directiva para dictar normas para el respeto a los Derechos Humanos CCFFAA IG/ Nº 009, afirma el abogado del acusado, por tanto, sí, en el documento normativo macro, DIRECTIVA DE GOBIERNO PARA LA PACIFICACION el cual emite normas para el dominio militar y los no militares, en el del nivel inmediatamente inferior, que corresponde al del domino militar, de igual manera se formula una Directiva poniendo el mismo énfasis en el respeto a los Derechos Humanos, más aun, sin temor de ser reiterativos, se emite una Directiva especifica referida al respeto a los Derechos Humanos (documentos que obran en el expediente y son de dominio público), y mas adelante confirmó lo dicho por todos los generales, “los elementos de maniobra (Zona de Seguridad Nacional o Regiones Militares) hacen su planeamiento en base al contenido en las directivas emitidas por el CCFFAA, lo único que hacen es aumentar detalles para que los elementos subordinados (Sub Zona de Seguridad Nacional o Grandes Unidades o Divisiones, División Blindada, División de Fuerzas Especiales, etc.) tengan facilidades en el planeamiento y conducción de operaciones…”, como es posible que se pretenda afirmar que era política de estado la desaparición o eliminación de personas, si lo que se afirma en los documentos es lo contario, el respeto a los Derechos Humanos.
    Luego responde, ante otra pregunta: “el CGE no tiene participación, ni en el planeamiento ni en la conducción de operaciones, el es un elemento administrativo que dirige el ejército para la instrucción, entrenamiento y la preparación de la fuerza, y ponerlas en la mejor forma posible para que el Comando Conjunto las conduzca en operaciones”, ¿el Comandante General del Ejercito podía dar una Directiva de Dominio…?, pregunta la defensa, “no tiene capacidad, ni responsabilidad, ni es su función…, no es su trabajo ”, ¿el alto mando del ejército podría hacer una directiva de dominio?, nuevamente pregunta, “de ninguna manera, es inaceptable, no está en capacidad, ni es su potestad ”.

You must log in to post a comment.