Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado

Accountability in Action :: Rindiendo cuentas

Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado random header image

Public Prosecutor’s Office presents more evidence

November 3rd, 2008 · No Comments

(Alberto Fujimori. Photo: Judicial Power) 

October 31, 2008

One hundred fourthteenth session. The Public Prosecutor’s Office presented documents in efforts to prove former President Alberto Fujimori’s command responsibility for the crimes perpetrated by the Colina Military Detachment by demonstrating the attempt to give impunity for the La Cantuta crime.

1. Fujimori’s criminal trial for human rights violations


Public Prosecutor Avelino Guillén presented a packet of evidence in order to demonstrate Fujimori’s attempt to secure impunity for the La Cantuta crime’s authors, the Colina Military Detachment. The packet consisted of 11 pieces of evidence, including:

1.     Sentences dictated by the War Court and the Military Justice Supreme Council (in the military courts), in the first and second instance, respectively.

2.     Resolution plans

3.     Legal documents

4.     Extracts from the book Eye for an eye (Ojo por Ojo), written by journalist Umberto Jara Flores.

1.     Sentences from military courts

According to the Public Prosecutor, “the trial in the military courts was simulated in order to avoid investigations from digging deeper and finding out who ordered the application of the dirty war strategy.” Thus, these sentences serve to demonstrate the impunity strategy applied in the military courts and its connection to the National Intelligence Service (SIN), since according to the Public Prosecutor, the trial verdicts were dictated in the SIN.

Furthermore, in the military courts, the Colina detachment was supposedly investigated as an isolated group outside of the military structure, not as a detachment within the Peruvian Army, dependent on the SIN. For this reason, no information was requested from the SIN nor from any intelligence body within the Armed Forces (such as the Army Intelligence Office, DINTE, or Army Intelligence Service, SIE), even though there are official documents signed by Juan Norberto Rivero Lazo, then director of the DINTE, that authorize the formation of this military detachment and its respective armament.

Additionally, according to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the military courts carried out a “simulated” investigation of this crime. The investigation lasted a mere 72 hours and only the material authors of the crime were sentenced, indicated as “diverted” military officials or “unlinked to the army.” However, in reality, this was an attempt to impede uncovering the responsibility of Vladimiro Montesinos (Fujimori’s top advisor), Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos (then chief of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces) and Alberto Fujimori.

After this sentence, an amnesty law was passed in July 1994, freeing the military officials who had been sentenced for human rights violations.

Questioning from Fujimori’s defense


Fujimori’s principal lawyer, César Nakazaki, was present for the first time in four sessions and led the questioning regarding the evidence presented:


1.              Nakazaki argued that that the military court sentences demonstrate there was a guilty verdict issued by military justice, which does not prove that Fujimori’s protection was sought. Moreover, according to Nakazaki, the former Colina agents that have testified in this trial have only said that Santiago Martin Rivas gave the order for the crimes and at no time testified that this order came from Fujimori.


However, the Public Prosecution’s formal accusation establishes that Fujimori had command responsibility, not that he was the direct author of the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta crimes. In this way, the testimonies in this hearing from former Colina agents, such as Julio Chuqui Aguirre, have indicated that Martin Rivas received his orders for the Colina detachment from his superiors and that these superiors informed Fujimori.


2.              Regarding the legal documents, resolution plans and other various documents found in a SIN computer, Nakazaki argued that they are only transcripts that Rafael Merino Bartet, former SIN political advisor, presented to Congress. Furthermore, Nakazaki claimed that according to international jurisprudence and doctrine, they cannot be considered evidence, but only “auxiliary support, meaning they have no evidential value.”


2. Incidents surrounding the criminal trial


Fujimorista and APRA Congressmen cite former Truth Commission members


For the third time in October, the members of Congress’ Defense Commission cited former members of the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR).


Among the congressmen who reiterated this citation are: Edgar Núñez of the APRA party (who presented the last amnesty proposal for military officials tried for human rights violations) and pro-Fujimori congresswomen Martha Moyano and Cecilia Chacón (daughter of military official Walter Chacón Málaga, who is currently being tried for corruption and support for Fujimori’s reelection).


This citation, according to members of Congress, is for the former CVR commissioners to explain the methodology used to calculate the number of victims from the 1980-2000 internal armed conflict and how the CVR funds were used.


However, Salomón Lerner Febres, former president of the CVR, already responded to this citation on Oct. 27 by indicating that the CVR was deactivated more than five years ago and all their information is public, which can be found on the former commission’s web page www.cverdad.org.pe.


According to the CVR’s Final Report, Alberto Fujimori’s government organized a government structure that controlled all the state’s powers, as well as other key institutions, and used formal/legal procedures in order to assure impunity for human rights violators.


3. Next session 


The next session will be held on Monday, Nov. 3.


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.