For almost fifteen years, one of the big questions that has divided Peruvians has been whether Alberto Fujimori, the man who ruled Peru in the 1990s, deserves freedom or should spend the last years of his life in prison. In December 2017, on the eve of Christmas Eve, economist Pedro Pablo Kuczynski granted him a humanitarian pardon, citing his poor health. This ignited the spark and the crowd took to the streets in protest. After spending several months in the Centenario Clinic, the presidential pardon was finally revoked and Fujimori returned to Barbadillo prison. Father Keiko Fujimori is sentenced to 25 years in prison for being the intellectual author of crimes against humanity.
However, the story has taken a turn in the last few hours. Although the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CID) ordered not to carry out the release of the former president, an order of the Constitutional Court ordered that its decision to restore the number of humanitarian pardons enshrined in it be submitted to a court in a habeas corpus in March 2022. Although While the current Minister of Justice, Eduardo Arana, initially assured that the IACHR resolution was still in force, the President of the Constitutional Court, Francisco Morales Saravia, was blunt on the matter this afternoon: “The answer is yes” (applies to publication by Fujimori), because what we have decided is a clarification. The judgments of the Court must be followed and respected, as must the decisions of the Supreme Court, but in this case the judgment of the Constitutional Court prevails. We attach great importance to the decisions of the Court and its jurisprudence, but in this case we have not yet decided on this point and in any case there could be a debate about the significance of this decision or not,” he explained.
Lawyer Ana Neyra sheds more light on the matter and suggests instrumentalizing the law: “Are the statements of the President of the Constitutional Court that Alberto Fujimori should be released or that the release depends on “administrative authorities” shared by the majority of the court? Constitutional Court (which declared the clarification inadmissible)? If it was assumed that there were no obstacles to a pardon, this should have been stated in the order (decision); and the decision of the Inter-American Court, which is mandatory, would be ignored. “Fortunately, journalistic statements are not a legal source.”
Keiko Fujimori, leader of Fuerza Popular and heiress to the patriarch, emerged from the silence of recent months and declared the pardon of her 87-year-old father complete. “He has been deprived of his freedom for more than 16 years. I think that’s enough. We are not here in a debate to understand or analyze whether Alberto Fujimori is guilty or innocent, because there is a decision and a humanitarian pardon, and after that there are two resolutions of the Constitutional Court of our country, which confirm this decision. We are very happy that my father can be home with us,” he said.
Follow all international information on Facebook and Xor in our weekly newsletter.