Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado

Accountability in Action :: Rindiendo cuentas

Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado random header image

Public Prosecutor’s Office continues to present evidence

October 22nd, 2008 · No Comments

(Photo: Judicial Power)

October 20, 2008

One hundred ninth session. The Public Prosecutor’s Office continued to present documents that allegedly demonstrate Alberto Fujimori’s command responsibility in the crimes committed by the Colina Military Detachment.

1. Fujimori’s human rights trial

During this session, the Public Prosecutor’s Office presented evidence to show Fujimori’s and Vladimiro Montesinos’ approval of the La Cantuta crime, committed by Colina.


The Public Prosecutor presented and argued the evidential value of the following documents:


1.   Five declarations from Luis Pérez Documet, former head of the Army Special Forces Division (DIFE). In all five declarations, Pérez reveals that on July 17, 1992 — the night of the La Cantuta massacres — he received a verbal order by telephone from the Chief of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces, Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos, to support Army Intelligence Office (DINTE) director Juan Rivero Lazo in an “intelligence task.” (Hermoza, who is defended by the same lawyer as Fujimori, is currently being tried for corruption and human rights violations.)          

   The Public Prosecutor argued “it has been demonstrated that the order was given, fulfilled and executed in terms of offering support to an intelligence group that was going to carry out an operation in La Cantuta University,” which would reveal the connection and collaborative work that took place between the DINTE and an operative unit (DIFE) in order to give support to the Colina intelligence group.

   Similarly, the Public Prosecutor claims this should demonstrate that the “dirty war” was executed from a high level, meaning the “dirty war” was directed from the army high commands, including Hermoza Ríos.

2. Two declarations made by Hermoza Ríos in the Habeas Corpus trial the La Cantuta victims’ family members began in 1992. According to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Hermoza claimed that he gave the orders as President of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and admitted that in the “operation” there were no arrests, but rather eliminations.

        Therefore, the Public Prosecutor’s Office says these documents “demonstrate that the Colina Detachment could intervene and develop intelligence operations, including in areas under military control, as occurred in La Cantuta University.”       

3. The Results Report for the La Cantuta case

4. The book Eye for an eye (Ojo por ojo) by journalist Umberto Jara Flores

5. The book Lessons from this century (Lecciones de este siglo) written by former Gen. Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos and with a prologue by Vladimiro Montesinos, which was presented in the Universidad del Pacífico in Peru.

6. Declarations from Susan Higuchi, Fujimori’s ex-wife, who testified as a victim in the criminal trial “Sótanos SIE” (Army Intelligence Service Basements), which the Public Prosecutor claims demonstrate that Fujimori and Montesinos approved Colina’s “operations.”

7. Hermoza Ríos’ testimony given in April 2004, in which he indicates that Fujimori and Montesinos approved Colina’s operations. When Hermoza gave this testimony, his lawyer César Nakazaki was not yet representing former President Fujimori.

8. Interview with Jesús Sosa Saavedra, conducted by a journalist for local newspaper La República in May 2008.


Questioning from Fujimori’s defense

As has occurred since the beginning of the evidence phase, Fujimori’s lawyer, César Nakazaki, questioned the Public Prosecutor’s arguments, asserting that these pieces of evidence are more based on a media defense rather than a legal defense.


Nakazaki argued that Perez Documet’s declarations do not comply with legal requirements since they are not essentially the same, and thus argues that they should not be considered evidence for this trial.


Nakazaki also questioned the Results Report for the La Cantuta case as document evidence, which was submitted to the Court by former Colina agent Marcos Flores Albán, since “this report’s authenticity has not been established.”


Regarding Hermoza Ríos’ declarations in the 1992 Habeas Corpus trial, Nakazaki claimed that they were personal and could only be incorporated via testimony in this current trial. Thus, according to Nakazaki, only Hermoza’s testimony from this trial — Fujimori’s human rights trial — can be considered, and not his former testimony which was given when Nakazaki was not yet representing Alberto Fujimori, who was a fugitive from Peruvian justice in Japan at the time.


2. Incidents


Absence of Fujimori’s lawyer

Nakazaki was absent after the session’s midday recess, leaving the defense to his assistants Gladys Vallejo Santa María and Adolfo Pinedo Rojas. Nakazaki’s absence was due to providing legal work to two of his other clients who are currently arrested.


Amnesty proposal for military officials

The same day as this trial session, Congressman Edgar Núñez from the APRA ruling party presented a bill that would give amnesty to the military and police officials currently being judged for human rights violations. This bill is also being backed by the pro-Fujimori political party.


3. Next session 

The next session will take place on Wednesday, Oct. 22.


0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

You must log in to post a comment.