(Kenyi Fujimori, Alberto Fujimori’s son. Photo: Ana María Vidal, Praxis)
October 24, 2008
One hundred eleventh session. The Public Prosecutor’s Office continued to present evidence in order to demonstrate Alberto Fujimori’s command responsibility in the kidnappings of the “Army Intelligence Service (SIE) Basements”, this time focusing on the case of businessman Samuel Dyer Ampudia, on July 27, 1992.
In this session, the Public Prosecutor presented a series of evidence intended to prove two main theses:
1. Joint planning and design between Fujimori and Vladimiro Montesinos for the kidnappings after April 5, 1992 — The Public Prosecutor presented a packet of 19 pieces of evidence in order to prove that Fujimori ordered the deprivation of liberty of Samuel Dyer.
According to the Public Prosecutor: “The order to kidnap businessman Samuel Dyer was dictated by Alberto Fujimori and was passed along by Vladimiro Montesinos. The order was given in the National Intelligence Service (SIN), was complied with and executed.”
The evidence presented includes:
1. Two declarations made by Fujimori’s ex-wife, Susana Higuchi, one before the Peruvian Congress on March 5, 2002 and the other before the Supreme Court’s Special Criminal Court in the trial held on Oct. 27, 2006 for the April 5, 1992 coup d’état.
3. Journalistic articles, open and notarized letters written by Samuel Dyer that he sent to the media and to Alberto Fujimori. According to the Public Prosecutor, these documents demonstrate that Fujimori was aware of his kidnapping through the press and through the letters sent by Dyer himself.
4. The sentence from the Supreme Court’s Special Criminal Court on the trial for the April 5, 1992 coup d’état.
2. Acts of Impunity — Later, the Public Prosecutor incorporated evidence on the supposed acts of impunity carried out by Alberto Fujimori. Regarding Barrios Altos:
1. Thirty documents, almost all journalistic clips after the Barrios Altos crime: news on the crime, reactions produced at the highest levels of the government and armed forces, articles indicating that the crime’s authors were military personnel. The Public Prosecutor argued that Fujimori, Montesinos and the military chiefs of that time carried out intensive acts of impunity in order to cover up those who perpetrated the crime and consequently to protect themselves: “The strategy of impunity was designed and executed to prevent the identification, investigation and sanction of those who gave the orders, provided means and economic resources and determined the application of a dirty war in our country.”
Questioning from Fujimori’s defense
As in the previous session, lawyer César Nakazaki was not present. Instead, lawyers Gladys Vallejo Santa María and Adolfo Pinedo Rojas led the questioning on the evidential value and suitability of the majority of evidence presented.
Regarding Susana Higuchi’s testimony, the defense argued that the Public Prosecutor should have asked her to testify in this current trial: “This testimony is irrelevant and has no evidential value.” The defense added that Higuchi’s testimony has not been uniform.
The defense further argued that the journalistic articles and letters are narrative documents and are thus unsuitable: “It is not logical to try to prove through journalistic articles and notarized letters that my client ordered and planned the illegal detention of [Samuel] Dyer and [Gustavo] Gorriti.”
The defense also asserted that the evidence provided by the Public Prosecutor does not demonstrate Fujimori’s participation in planning and ordering the Barrios Altos massacre.
The next session will take place on Monday, Oct. 27.