Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado

Accountability in Action :: Rindiendo cuentas

Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado random header image

Public Prosecutor’s Office presents evidence to show Hermoza’s dependence on Fujimori

October 31st, 2008 · No Comments

October 29, 2008

One hundred thirteenth session. The Public Prosecutor’s Office presented documents in efforts to prove “the active role that [Alberto] Fujimori had in designing the impunity strategy, prepared in the National Intelligence Service [SIN] in order to prevent investigations from uncovering more information and revealing who gave the order for the extrajudicial execution — Fujimori himself.”

During this session, the Public Prosecutor presented three groupings of evidence:

 

1.     Declarations made by Fujimori and Gen. Nicolás Hermoza Ríos

2.     Threats made to the Democratic Constituent Congress (CCD)

3.     The role of the SIN in military displacement

 

1.              Fujimori’s and Hermoza Ríos’ declarations – The evidence presented was:

 

1.1.                   An intelligence memo on Barrios Altos, given to the press on Dec. 1, 1992 by Máximo San Román, former vice president of Peru who was removed from power during the April 5, 1992 coup d’état. The intelligence note has information on the “elimination” of 15 people in the Barrios Altos crime. According to the note, the crime was carried out by military officials in the Army Intelligence Service (SIE) who had been moved over from the SIN.

1.2.                   A memory aid on Gen. Rodolfo Robles Espinoza’s declarations on the La Cantuta crime.

 

1.3.                   Journalistic articles from May 1993 that cited some of Alberto Fujimori’s exact declarations, in which he publicly supported his advisor Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, as well as army general Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos, calling them “leaders in confronting subversion.” In his declarations, Fujimori also indicated that Robles’ claims were “a play of interests, even seditious.”

Fujimori made these declarations after Robles’ claims to the press that there was a military detachment created to execute people. According to the Public Prosecutor, Fujimori’s comments to the press were part of a “script” prepared in the SIN.

 

2.     Threats to the CCD – The Public Prosecutor presented documents in order to demonstrate that the Peruvian army intentionally intimidated the Democratic Constituent Congress (CCD) after it began an investigation of the La Cantuta crime. According to the Public Prosecutor, these documents prove that the army carried out “an open intimidation strategy toward the CCD for its investigations, which turned into an impunity strategy, backed by Fujimori, as shown in his own statements.”

Some of the documents presented were:

 

2.1.                   Peruvian army communiqués

 

2.2.                   Statements by Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos.

 

2.3.                   Journalistic articles on the tanks parading the streets in April 1993. The Public Prosecutor argued that the tank parade in front of Congress was a clear message of support to the Colina Military Detachment.

 

2.4.                   Sections of the book “Ojo por ojo” written by journalist Umberto Jara Flores.

 

3.     The SIN’s role in military displacements – The Public Prosecutor presented three documents found in a SIN computer.

 

Questioning by Fujimori’s defense

 

Once again Fujimori’s principal lawyer, César Nakazaki, did not attend the session. Instead, lawyers Gladys Vallejo Santa María and Adolfo Pinedo Rojas headed the defense, questioning the evidential value and relevance of the documents presented.

The lawyers questioned the intelligence memo’s authenticity since it does lacks certain distinctive characteristics, such as a seal, description (secret, confidential) or the name of the body that issued it. They also argued that there is no handwriting test proving its authenticity.

The defense also asserted that there has been no judicial or extrajudicial recognition of the “memory aid” of Robles’ claims to the press.

In the case of the journalistic articles, the defense reiterated their argument from the previous session, saying these are narrative and not testimonial documents.

For the journalistic articles citing Hermoza’s declarations, in which he “unduly” authorizes the tank parade that he did not consult Fujimori on, Fujimori’s lawyers claimed that the Court should only give value to Hermoza’s declaration in this current trial.

Next session

The next session will take place on Friday, Oct. 31, 2008.

Tags:

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment