On 1 August 1996, the Office of the President introduced a bill in Congress that would allow for the creation of an ad-hoc commission which would be in charge of reviewing the cases of Peruvians unjustly convicted of terrorism and treason. The commission would be made up of the Ombudsman of Peru, Dr Jorge Santisteban […]
On 1 August 1996, the Office of the President introduced a bill
in Congress that would allow for the creation of an ad-hoc
commission which would be in charge of reviewing the cases of
Peruvians unjustly convicted of terrorism and treason. The
commission would be made up of the Ombudsman of Peru, Dr Jorge
Santisteban de Noriega, Minister of Justice Carlos Hermoza Moya
as well as a representative of President Alberto Fujimori.
According to a government official, Father Hubert Lanssiers,
president of the Governmental Commission for Dialogue with the
National Commission for Human Rights, is the most likely
candidate.
**Updates IFEX alerts dated 31 and 17 July 1996**
The commission would evaluate, rank and bring to the attention of
the President those cases involving Peruvians unjustly convicted
of terrorism who would be absolved. In order to carry out its
mandate, the commission would have access to the case records
from both the public and military courts as well as interviews
with those convicted of and currently being tried for terrorism
and treason. The Office of the Ombudsman would become the
secretariat of the commission, providing any resources necessary
for its functioning. In addition, the commission would operate
for a period of six months — with the possibility of a one-time
extension — during which it would function according to the
dictates of the law.
Because so many innocent people have been convicted of terrorism
and are currently imprisoned, Santisteban de Noriega believes
that it is essential to introduce measures to put in place —
within the confines of the fight against terrorism — the needed
mechanisms that would balance and rectify the defence of human
rights.
Since it is within the power of the President to grant pardons,
commute sentences and “forgive” when the conditions merit,
Santisteban de Noriega spoke of the various ways of obtaining the
release of those unjustly imprisoned. The first is through a
review of the case, which could lead to their eventual release.
The second option is an amnesty. This could work, but it requires
that there be enough social consensus to justify its
implementation. However, says Santisteban de Noriega, “I don’t
believe that that situation exists right now in Peru.” Another
possibility is to pardon them. While not imperfect, this measure
is limited, because only the sentence would be pardoned, not the
actual “crime.” Nevertheless, it is a practical, concrete
measure, and would obtain the quick release of those unjustly
detained. To be sure, the problem of their guilt remains, but
that is an issue that could be dealt with later on. Furthermore,
this method need not be the only one considered: nothing should
prevent the exploration of the other means available and, indeed,
the commission, if formed, would take them all into account.
However, Santisteban de Noriega added that the first thing that
the commission would do would be to ask those imprisoned if they
wished to be pardoned. Nobody would be pardoned against his will,
he said.
Meanwhile, human rights organisations in Peru, while not opposed
to any efforts made to free those unjustly imprisoned, have urged
the review of some 1,490 cases that they have monitored so that
their innocence may be proclaimed and they can be vindicated in
the eyes of society. Of that total, as of December 1995, 760
people were acquitted — and are awaiting confirmation from the
Supreme Court — 424 are currently being tried, 283 are
imprisoned, with an additional 23 whose status is unclear.
The commission would officially begin its duties on 15 August.
Its task would be a difficult and delicate one. As Lanssiers
stated: “It is not about dusting off case files but rather
vindicating those human beings who have been reduced to such a
[miserable] state due to an unjust imprisonment.”
