Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado

Accountability in Action :: Rindiendo cuentas

Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado random header image

Fujimori’s defense begins presentation of evidence and medical report indicates health complications

November 18th, 2008 · No Comments

(Fujimori’s lawyer, César Nakazaki. Photo: Judicial Power) 

November 17, 2008

One hundred twenty-first session. A medical report informed that former President Alberto Fujimori is once again experiencing health complications. Additionally, Fujimori’s lawyer began to present evidence during this session.

1. Incidents during the hearing

Fujimori’s health

A report from a medical team in the National Institute of Neoplastic Illnesses (INEN) was read in court, indicating that Fujimori has vascular insufficiency and high blood pressure, as well as risks of developing thrombosis and severe gastritis. The report recommended changing Fujimori’s medications, continually monitoring his blood pressure, changing his diet, avoiding staying in place for longer than 90 minutes or prolonged rest during the day. The report requested an inpatient reevaluation within four weeks in the INEN, on Dec. 12 in the afternoon, and warned against any kind of traveling due to the risk of embolism.

César San Martín, the President of the Court, stated that this medical report lacked certain forensic details, including time periods, rest specifications and circumstances. He added that according to the law, an official report must be received by the Institute of Legal Medicine (IML) in order to decide how to proceed during following sessions.

Lawyers for the victims’ families present evidence

Carlos Rivera Paz, lawyer for the victims’ families, argued that the evidence presented demonstrates that there was a systematic pattern of human rights violations in Fujimori’s government. The evidence packet was turned in last session, which included the Final Report of Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission as well as the 1993 report from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and reports from Amnesty International in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

Questioning by Fujimori’s defense

Fujimori’s principal lawyer, César Nakazaki, restated that the Truth Commission’s Final Report could not be considered document evidence since it does not prove that Fujimori endorsed a dirty war strategy, created the Colina Military Detachment, or that he ordered the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta massacres.

Nakazaki further claimed that “the reports do not replace documents, witnesses or experts in a trial.” It’s important, he said, to remember that military officials’ testimonies have been given both in the Truth Commission’s final report and in trials while Fujimori was a fugitive from justice in Japan, and that these officials have changed their testimonies in this current trial, such as in the case of Santiago Martin Rivas and Nicolás de Bari Hermosa. Thus Nakazaki insists that only those testimonies given during this trial should be taken into consideration.

Evidence presented by Fujimori’s defense

“The policy of pacification and respect toward human rights dictated by President Fujimori.” Nakazaki initiated the presentation of evidence with this issue:

1. Order 017 – 89 of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces

2. Government Order 001 – 90,

3. Order 009 – 91 of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces

4. Human Rights Record from August 1991

5. Order 003 – 91 “National Defense Plan for Pacification”

6. Order No. 001 –92

7. Procedural norms for processing reports of human rights violations.


II. Incidents surrounding the criminal trial

Fujimori doesn’t show up for Montesinos’ trial

The Court trying Vladimiro Montesinos, Fujimori’s former intelligence advisor, suspended the session in the trial for the “Marcha de los Cuatro Suyos” — for which the former president was summoned to testify — due to the absence of Montesinos’ lawyer.

In light of alleged health complications, it has become even more difficult to transfer Fujimori to the court where Montesinos is being tried, which is located in a military base on the other side of Lima. However, the Public Prosecutor in Montesinos’ trial has announced that if necessary, the court could transfer to Fujimori’s cell in order for him to testify.

According to the Public Prosecutor, Fujimori’s testimony is essential in this trial since the question of who gave the order for the National Police Force to leave the protest La Marcha de los Cuatro Suyos — thus permitting vandals to destroy and set fire to several buildings, including a bank — must be resolved. People who are close to the former advisor have confirmed that he paid US$220,000 to hire vandals as well as for the housing and meals of agents from the National Intelligence Service (SIN) in order to infiltrate the protest and create disturbances.

Furthermore, in the trials Montesinos faces for corruption, the Public Prosecutor will present evidence this week to demonstrate his ties with Colombian drug trafficker Pablo Escobar Gaviria, who supposedly gave money for Fujimori’s first presidential campaign in 1990.

Next session

For the next session on Wednesday, Nov. 19, Fujimori’s lawyers will continue to present evidence to disprove accusations against their client. The Public Prosecutor’s Office took 18 sessions for the presentation of evidence, while the lawyers for the victims’ families took three sessions, adding up to a total of 21 sessions during which evidence has been presented in order to prove that Fujimori is guilty.