Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado

Accountability in Action :: Rindiendo cuentas

Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado random header image

Public Prosecutor’s Office presents declassified documents from the US Embassy in Lima

October 29th, 2008 · No Comments

(Sonia Gladys Rubina Arquiñiga, sister of one of the Barrios Altos victims. Photos: Ana María Vidal, Praxis.)

October 27, 2008

One hundred twelfth session. The Public Prosecutor’s Office continued to present evidence to prove the impunity acts that Alberto Fujimori supposedly carried out after the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta crime. The evidence presented included:

1.     Two declarations made by José Luis Bazán Adrianzén, former army intelligence (SIE) agent, given before a congressional commission and the Supreme Court. According to the Public Prosecutor, in both declarations, Bazán Adrianzén directly implicates former President Alberto Fujimori: “They indicate Fujimori, former advisor Vladimiro Montesinos and former Army Commander General Nicolás Hermoza Ríos.”

2.     Journalistic reports related to the public claim made by Gen. Rodolfo Robles Espinoza in May 1993, where he asserts that the La Cantuta crime was perpetrated by a military detachment that acted with the knowledge of Vladimiro Montesinos and Nicolás de Bari Hermoza (who in 1993 was Chief of the Joint Command of Armed Forces). According to the Public Prosecutor, “these documents give evidence that the army high commands were fully aware that there was a special detachment working with its support.”

3.     Four declassified documents sent by the US Embassy in Lima between 1991 and 1993 to the Secretary of State in Washington.

According to the Public Prosecutor, these documents demonstrate the US Embassy’s perception of the investigations headed by military authorities and the civil courts for the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta crimes: “this block of evidence reveals the impunity strategy developed by Fujimori and the high military commands, and this perception is reflected by the US Embassy in these documents.”

This evidence demonstrates the government’s lack of willingness to clear up the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta massacres, since there was previous knowledge of military officials’ participation in the killings, which brought on the attempts to avoid investigations and establish impunity.

(Fujimorista area two blocks from where the hearings take place) 

 

4.     Reports from different intelligence bodies in the National Police Force, Peruvian Army and Armed Forces, the police’s Counter-Terrorism Office (DIRCOTE), Army Intelligence Office (DINTE), National Intelligence Service (SIN), and others. The Public Prosecutor argued that the documents demonstrate “that there was a meticulously planned impunity strategy to impede the identification of the authors and executors of the Barrios Altos massacre, and designed to disorient and confuse public opinion by providing false information.”

5.     A packet of documents with declarations by Fujimori and Gen. Nicolás Hermoza Ríos.

 

Questioning by Fujimori’s defense

As in past sessions, Fujimori’s principal lawyer, César Nakazaki was not present. Instead, lawyers Gladys Vallejo Santa María and Adolfo Pinedo Rojas led the defense, questioning the evidential value and relevance of the documents presented.

 

Regarding the journalistic articles, the defense again argued that these are narrative documents and not declarative, meaning they have no value as evidence.

Similarly, the lawyers argued that Rodolfo Robles Espinoza’s claim in May 1993 does not imply Fujimori’s responsibility, but rather incriminates Montesinos and Hermoza. Hermoza is currently represented by the same lawyer as former President Fujimori and Julio Salazar Monroe, former general sentenced to 35 years in prison for the Cantuta crime.

 

(Inside the police base, next to the courtroom where Fujimori’s trial is held.)

The defense further argued that Bazán Adrianzén’s declarations violate key legal principles and that in order to be considered valid, he would have to testify in this current trial.

 

Regarding the US Embassy declassified documents, they argued that no impunity strategy by Fujimori or high military commands is revealed; they were simply personal opinions of the Embassy staff based on information from various sources.

 

Next session

Next session will take place on Wednesday, Oct. 29.

Tags:

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment