Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado

Accountability in Action :: Rindiendo cuentas

Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado random header image

Fujimori’s defense presents evidence to disprove Colina’s dependence on the SIN

December 2nd, 2008 · No Comments

(Alberto Fujimori. Photo: Judicial Power.) 

November 28, 2008

One hundred twenty-fifth session. Alberto Fujimori’s defense continued to present evidence; however, the trial was suspended at 1 pm (an hour before scheduled) due to complications in Fujimori’s health. For the next session, it will be decided whether or not Fujimori will testify in the trial of Vladimiro Montesinos, his former advisor.

I. Inside the courtroom

1. Again, Fujimori’s health. On finishing the session’s second recess, the doctor from the Institute of Legal Medicine (IML) stated that Fujimori had acute gastroenterocolitis (inflammation of the stomach, small intestine and colon), light dehydration and stomach problems, thus requiring rest for the next 24 hours.

Due to this recommendation, the Court suspended the session until Monday, Dec. 1.

2. Evidence presented by Fujimori’s defense. For this session, lawyer Johan Pinedo led Fujimori’s defense, presenting the following evidence:

2.1. A collection of norms that attempt to demonstrate Fujimori did not directly participate in the National Intelligence System (SINA), including chapter IV of Legislative Decree 743.

2.2. Thirty-nine norms dictated by the Executive Branch between 1991 and 1992. According to Pinedo, these norms contributed to the country’s pacification and demonstrated that there was a policy of pacification that included: 1) the population’s support through civic works, and 2) a collection of norms with severe sanctions in order to end subversive movements.

2.3. Strategic Intelligence Manual for the subversive group Shining Path, prepared in 1991 by the Analysis Group headed by military officials from the Army Intelligence Service (SIE): Fernando Rodríguez Zabalbeascoa, Santiago Martin Rivas and Carlos Pichilingüe, who answered to the National Intelligence Service (SIN). Pinedo claimed that Plan Cipango — thought to be linked to Strategic Intelligence Manual — exists exclusively in the testimony of former Colina member Marcos Flores Albán and does not constitute as document evidence. The Public Prosecutor’s Office believes the Plan Cipango was the base for the Colina group’s formation.

2.4. A collection of documents that supposedly demonstrate the autonomy of the Army Intelligence Office (DINTE) in managing its intelligence personnel, in order to disprove the Public Prosecutor’s accusation that the Colina Military Detachment answered to the SIN.

3. Questioning from the Public Prosecutor’s Office

According to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the group of legal norms presented by the defense is in line with the government’s official strategy to combat subversive action: “Here, Mr. Fujimori is not being tried for his official strategy, but rather the parallel strategy of a dirty war that was executed through the Colina group, which answered to the National Intelligence Service.”

4. Questioning from the lawyers for the victims’ families

Lawyer Carlos Rivera Paz added that the norms presented by the defense “included acts of generalized violations of human rights” since the Final Report of Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR) states that these norms violated various principles: “Special attention should be given to the radical changes in the anti-terrorist legislation and the consequences it implies: the turn toward the predominance of other rights abuses that do not necessarily threaten life, but were systematically practiced.”

5. The defense’s take on San Roman’s testimony

Lawyer Pinedo also mentioned that the testimony given by Máximo San Román Cáceres, former vice president, lacks evidential value since he has given different testimony before Congress and the Judicial Power, including contradictions and omissions.

As an example, Pinedo referred to the information San Román provided in a few memos. In one of these, San Román warns about Vladimiro Montesinos’ past and in another, about the authors of the Barrios Altos crime. According to San Román, he gave these memos to Fujimori during his government, but the former president denies having received them.

II. Outside the courtroom

Fujimori in Montesinos’ trial. The Court that is trying Vladimiro Montesinos for the “Marcha de los Cuatro Suyos” requested for the IML to affirm whether or not Fujimroi could be transferred to the trial’s location — the Naval Base in Callao, the other side of Lima — in order to testify.

In this way, the court trying Montesinos has respected the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to have Fujimori testify against his former advisor, Montesinos, since his testimony will be important for the trial.

On Monday, Dec. 1, the IML must present another medical report on the former president’s health and whether he can be transferred. The IML has recommended in a past medical report for Fujimori not to be transferred. However, the court trying Montesinos has declared that Fujimori’s testimony is vital for the hearing and has stated its willingness to transfer to where Fujimori is currently being held.

III. Next session

During the next session, on Monday, Dec. 1, Fujimori’s lawyers will provide evidence to disprove the Public Prosecutor’s accusation for the sixth consecutive session.

 

Since the beginning of this trial, on Dec. 10, 2007, Fujimori has repeatedly experienced health problems, which have required the Court to suspend many sessions and have caused a delay in the trial. To date, the Court has been very careful with the defendant’s health, ordering for a medical exam whenever necessary. According to Peruvian law (article 234 of the Criminal Procedures Code), Fujimori has to be present at every trial session.

 

In November 2007, before the trial sessions began, the executive branch presented an urgent bill known as the “Hearings Simplification Bill,” which proposed the following: “if the defendant has made his declaration during the trial or chooses to maintain silence and he desists from attending the hearings, the hearings will continue without his presence and he will be represented by his lawyer.” Thus the norm proposed that hearings continue in the defendant’s absence, as long as the Court approved beforehand and the defendant had justified reasons to not attend.

 

The bill was not approved and provoked strong objection from the lawyers for the victims’ families. If this bill would have been passed, it could have interfered with the encounter between Fujimori and Montesinos.

Tags:

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.