Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado

Accountability in Action :: Rindiendo cuentas

Fujimori on Trial :: Fujimori procesado random header image

Public Prosecutor argues command responsibility

January 23rd, 2009 · 5 Comments

(Foto: Praxis)

January 14, 2009

One hundred thirty-sixth session. Public Prosecutor Avelino Guillén continued with final arguments, asserting that Alberto Fujimori was the creator and leader of a power system that combated subversive groups with dirty war methods through the National Intelligence Service (SIN), an official body.

I. Arguments of the Public Prosecutor’s Office:

1. Power system

According to the Public Prosecutor, “Fujimori built this power system, based in the SIN, had control and command over it, ensuring criminal results of eliminating and killing supposed terrorists… Alberto Fujimori not only had power to give orders but also had control over the damaging results.”

In this way, the Guillén established that “the order was carried out persistently and the results are Barrios Altos and La Cantuta.” He further argued that this order was given directly by Fujimori and that dirty war methods were applied beginning in 1991 in accordance with a structured plan that was executed through the Colina Military Detachment.

The Public Prosecutor also mentioned the participation of the following in this plan:

1.1.  Julio Salazar Monroe, former SIN chief, sentenced to 35 years in prison for the La Cantuta crime, who is represented by the same lawyer as Alberto Fujimori.

1.2.  Nicolás de Bari  Hermoza Ríos, former chief of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces, currently tried for human rights violations, also represented by the same lawyer as Alberto Fujimori.

1.3.  Juan Nolberto Rivero Lazo, former head of the Army Intelligence Office (DINTE).

The Public Prosecutor argued that each of these men took advantage of their government positions so that the Colina Military Detachment could commit crimes and the power system could fulfill its goals and objectives. He also said the power system was created in order to protect the person who gave orders (Alberto Fujimori): “the orders were verbal, there are no written orders for the execution of a specific act.”

2. Former presidential advisor Vladimiro Montesinos

Regarding Vladimiro Montesinos and his position in the power system, the Public Prosecutor said that he not only delivered the orders given by Fujimori, but also personally saw that these were fulfilled, therefore making him Colina’s “right arm.”

3. Fujimori’s command responsibility

Consequently, the Public Prosecutor developed his arguments according to Peruvian and international doctrine and jurisprudence regarding Fujimori’s command responsibility in the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta crimes as well as the kidnappings in the Army Intelligence Office buildings.

Guillén also referred to the sentence issued by the Judicial Power against the head of subversive group Shining Path and against former Gen. Julio Salazar Monroe.

II. Next session  

The next session will take place on Jan. 19.

Tags:

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Hugo R. Zea Barriga // Jan 24, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    It is difficult to understand your assessment in point 3 of this session (136) “ arguments developed according to Peruvian and international doctrine and jurisprudence”. What we actually see is an interminable and boring repetition of facts that happened but have little to do with the concrete charges against Fujimori–the existence of Grupo Colina, that the Cantuta and Barrios Altos crimes occurred, that SIN provided arms and materials, that Gen Salazar who should have been retired, etc – plus another interminable series of groundless contentions on how Fujimori had to know about them, how he must have ordered the provision of the means to commit the crimes, or how the memoranda congratulated for “operations” that were to take place a few months later, etc. All these assertions have nothing to do with the prosecution’s charges of murder or the introduction of the “dirty war” by the former president.

    As I understand this blog was set up to inform and defend human rights. If you are true to that principle you should reassess your position and question whose human rights are actually being violated. It was Fujimori who defended –in compliance with his constitutional responsibilities- this society that was being brutally attacked by the terrorists and succeeded defeating them and reducing the number of victims until their disappearance by the end of his first presidential term. How can now he be the one charged with human rights violations against all evidence? This question and an assessment of the whole situation I develop in a paper that I am attaching separately and which, if you are fair, should include in your analysis section so that your readers get the true picture of what is happening. I ask you this because I am somewhat familiar with the press’ position in the U.S., where at least an attempt to be fair is made which, of course, could not be expected from the Peruvian press which, as we see everyday, makes totally biased reports and comments which are fed to people outside of the country and who take them at face value.

  • 2 D. Lee // Jan 24, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Fujimori is a hero in the successful war against left wing terrorism. He should be aclaim a hero of Peru, rather than prosecuted.

    Wars always has its abuses and this one is no different. I believe Fujimori to be innocent and a national hero of Peru.

    He should be released immediately and be proclaimed a national hero of Peru.

  • 3 Hugo R. Zea Barriga // Jan 25, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    Could you please tell me where am I being inmoderate? I am stating the facts as I see them during the sessions.
    What is the, for instance, Mr. Manahan’s assessment of the prosecutor’s presentation?

  • 4 Admin // Jan 27, 2009 at 7:55 am

    Thank you for your comment, Mr. Zea. As we have already responded to the issue of our blog’s objectivity, we are copying that response below in English and Spanish.

    Thank you again for your participation.

    Como Ud. verá en nuestra explicación del blog, trabajamos para que la información que presentamos en el mismo sea la más completa y objetiva posible respecto al proceso penal. Sin embargo, estamos conscientes de que la objetividad absoluta es imposible, por lo cual invitamos a todos nuestros lectores a complementar la cobertura con sus propias observaciones, creando de esta manera un foro abierto que respeta las distintas opiniones.

    – Equipo fujimoriontrial.org

    As you will see in our explanation of the blog, we strive to present information as completely and objectively as possible regarding the criminal trial. However, we recognize that full objectivity is utterly impossible, which is why we invite our readers to complement the coverage with their own observations, thus creating an open forum that respects different opinions.

    – fujimoriontrial.org

  • 5 Michael Baney // Feb 2, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    One thing we have heard over and over in this trial is that Sendero’s declaration of having reached strategic equilibrium was nonsense. Sendero was loosing the war in the Sierra and looking desperately to speed things up and move it to Lima. They had to come up with a Maoist-sounding excuse to abandon Maoist warfare. At no point was the “People’s Guerrilla Army” as strong as the Peruvian military. At no point was the “People’s Republic of New Democracy” as strong the Republic of Peru. Looking back on it, the claim was totally absurd.

    It’s true that terrorism was significantly reduced from 1990 to 2000, but the idea that Fujimori was personally responsible for that reduction is a myth. In fact, I’d say that the government of Peru didn’t win the war as much as Sendero lost it. Sendero waged a Maoist war on the principals laid down in Mao Tse Tung’s work, Guerrilla Warfare. The idea was to wage a “protracted people’s war” in the countryside, surround the capital, and eventually deliver the death blow. Sendero, however, so brutalized the people that it claimed to be fighting for that the war sputtered pretty quickly. You can’t wage a “people’s war” when 90% of the people hate you, and you can’t wage a peasant rebellion when the peasants all want you dead. Sendero liked to say that it was “condemned to win,” but its bloody tactics and horrifying strategic vision made it doomed to fail. Once the campesinos turned against Sendero and started to actively fight against it, the war was lost for the Shining Path.

    This is not to say that the rondas were perfect – a lot of them committed terrible abuses. It is, however, to say that Sendero didn’t lose because Fujimori was in office. Sendero certainly didn’t lose because of the La Cantuta and Barrios Altos massacres. Sendero lost because it failed to win the hearts and minds of the people that it said it represented, and it failed to articulate a vision for the future of Peru other than one of totalitarian authoritarianism and downright genocide.

You must log in to post a comment.