Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado

Accountability in Action :: Rindiendo cuentas

Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado random header image

Lawyers for victims’ families continue to present evidence, but defense claims Constitutional Court rulings irrelevant for trial

November 17th, 2008 · No Comments

November 14, 2008

One hundred twentieth session. The lawyers for the victims’ families presented new packets of evidence to demonstrate the double strategy in the counter-subversive struggle during former President Alberto Fujimori’s government, which included the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta crimes, the kidnap of journalist Gustavo Gorriti and a systematic pattern of human rights violations.

I. Incidents during the hearing

Once again, Fujimori’s health

At the beginning of the session, the Court announced the results of Fujimori’s tooth and abdominal evaluations, conducted on Nov. 7 by the National Institute of Neoplastic Illnesses (INEN).  The Court also announced that beginning 7pm today, Nov. 14, Fujimori would be translated to the INEN until 11am the following morning in order to receive medical care.

Presentation of evidence by the lawyers for the victims’ families

1. Application of a double strategy in issues regarding human rights. Lawyer Carlos Rivera Paz presented a packet of evidence to demonstrate that between 1991 and 1993 a double strategy was developed in relation to human rights; the first was based on norms and documents expressing respect and protection, while the second was based on extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances and other rights violations:

1.1. Two of Fujimori’s televised messages to the nation from 1991 and 1993.

1.2. Two directives from Fujimori’s government.

1.3. Newspaper clippings

1.4. Part III of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report, including chapters on political and institutional actors and social organizations.

The government of the Acción Popular political party (1980 – 1985)

The government of the APRA party (1985-1990), the current ruling party

The 90s decade and Alberto Fujimori’s two terms in office (1990-2000)

The leftist political parties

The Legislative Power

The Judicial Power

1.4.2. Social organizations

The human rights movement

The labor unions, business unions and women’s organizations

The Catholic Church and evangelical churches

The media

The educational system and teaching

The universities


1.5. The “order” signed in April 1992 by Chief of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces, then Gen. Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos, indicating that by “order of the supreme command,” Gustavo Gorriti and various other opposition politicians would be “arrested.”

1.6. Report on Peru’s human rights situation, issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1993.

1.7. Reports from 1991, 1992 and 1993 from Amnesty International, which described the human right situation in Peru through statistics.


2. The Barrios Altos and La Cantuta crimes. Lawyer Antonio Salazar García presented an evidence packet to demonstrate that the Colina Military Detachment had a guarantee from Fujimori as well as his presidential advisor Vladimiro Montesinos: “this guarantee of protection from the former president allowed them to commit the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta crimes.” The evidence presented includes:

2.1. Part III of the Truth Commission’s Final Report

2.2. Investigation project titled “Colina and Montesinos” by journalist Gustavo Gorriti

2.3. Efficiency report from former Colina agent Ángel Pino Díaz.

2.4. Two rulings by the Constitutional Court on trials initiated by Santiago Martin Rivas in order to seek protection.


Public Prosecutor Avelino Guillén claimed that these pieces of evidence confirm that Colina was the National Intelligence Service’s (SIN) right arm, that the military detachment depended on the SIN and that Fujimori was aware of all of this.


3. Kidnap of journalist Gustavo Gorriti. Evidence offered by lawyer Carlos Rivera.


4. Existence of systematic abuse of human rights during Fujimori’s regime. Evidence also submitted by Carlos Rivera.

Questioning from the defense

Fujimori’s principal lawyer, César Nakazaki, questioned the evidence offered since he claimed they do not prove the accusation that Fujimori applied a dirty war, created the Colina detachment or gave the order for the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta crimes.

According to Nakazaki, neither Gorriti’s investigation nor the Truth Commission’s Final Report can be considered document proof.

Nakazaki also claimed that the Constitutional Court’s rulings are not document proof and thus cannot be taken into consideration for this trial since Fujimori was not one of the people tried.

II. Incidents surrounding Fujimori’s trial

Trial against Montesinos

As mentioned in previous posts, Fujimori has been summoned to testify in one of Montesinos’ trials, even though Nakazaki stated that Fujimori would not give testimony but rather only testify in the cases he was extradited for due to his health.

However, the Judicial Power has ruled that Fujimori must testify in Montesinos’ trial on Monday, Nov. 17. It will be the second time Fujimori has seen Montesinos in person since returning to Peru. The first time was in Fujimori’s human rights trial. 

Proposals for amnesty and pardons

Edgar Núñez and Mercedes Cabanillas, both members of Congress from the APRA party, proposed bills for amnesty and pardons for military officials tried and sentenced for human rights violations. Former high army commands have claimed that this proposal “would leave shadows” on the Armed Forces and the National Police Force and what should be sought is the fulfillment of due process.

Núñez has claimed that there are nearly 3,000 military officials currently being tried; however, the Judicial Power has asserted that there are only 399 members of the police and armed forces who are either on trial or who have been sentenced for rights-related cases.

Furthermore, 119 of these 399 have already been sentenced, and of the 119, a total of 78 have been acquitted, 28 condemned and the rest have claimed medical problems or the accusation has simply been removed. The Judicial Power also says that the majority of these sentences have been made based on testimony from military officials themselves.

Next session

During the next session on Monday, Nov. 17, the lawyers for the victims’ families will continue to present evidence.


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.