(IPYS/IFEX) – Some of the evidence for the phone tapping committed against businessmen, politicians and journalists has reportedly disappeared. On 10 November 1997, the journalists investigating the case claimed that the evidence had been left at Frecuencia Latina/Canal 2 before the station’s minority shareholders, the brothers Samuel and Mendel Winter, took over control of the […]
(IPYS/IFEX) – Some of the evidence for the phone tapping
committed against businessmen, politicians and journalists has
reportedly disappeared. On 10 November 1997, the journalists
investigating the case claimed that the evidence had been left at
Frecuencia Latina/Canal 2 before the station’s minority
shareholders, the brothers Samuel and Mendel Winter, took over
control of the television station. However, the directors of
Canal 2 sent a letter to the Congressional Commission for
Defence, Internal Order and Intelligence, which is investigating
the phone tapping, denying that the evidence was ever at the
station. Rather, the letter states, the journalists from the
Canal 2 program “Contrapunto” who resigned after the brothers
Winter assumed control took with them all documents related to
the phone tapping.
**Updates IFEX alerts dated 10 and 6 November, and 23 and 16
September 1997**
In spite of this development, other important details regarding
the case were delivered by journalists to the commission, which
is headed by Congresswoman Martha Chavez. In a private session,
the commission met with journalists Rosana Cueva, Gonzalo
Quijandria and Fernando Viana. Upon leaving the meeting,
Quijandria, former host “Contrapunto”, claimed that the phone
tapping, termed “Plan Emilio”, had allegedly been planned by the
Air Force of Peru this year in order to monitor politicians and
journalists. For its part, an Air Force official responded by
saying that the Plan Emilio was created for national defence
purposes. According to Quijandria, with the information that he
supplied the commission, it will now be in possession of more
details that could enable it to discern who is responsible for
the phone tapping.
For his part, Viana mentioned that Chavez assured him that she
had complete respect for press freedom. Chavez commented that the
evidence supplied by the journalists would be compared with other
documents held by the Ministry of State. Nevertheless, she
insisted that there could still be a possibility that the homes
and offices of those who refuse to supply information to the
commission could be raided, even though she emphasized that this
was her personal view and did not necessarily reflect that of the
commission itself.
On 13 November, President Alberto Fujimori gave assurances that
break-ins of offices of media outlets in order to obtain
documents for investigative purposes would not occur. He spoke
after stressing that “Peruvians are well aware of the need to
continue respecting the unhindered freedom of the press.”
Fujimori also stated that Chavez “has an point of view that is to
be respected; however, her proposal must be positioned within the
principle of the unrestricted freedom of the press and of
expression.” Without wishing to engage in an argument over the
matter, Fujimori said that Chavez was probably “attempting to get
to the bottom of the case. Fortunately, this [idea of break-ins]
is one that is becoming foreign in Peru,” he claimed.
Meanwhile, the questions that the commission plans to ask the
advisor to the National Intelligence Service (SIN), Vladimiro
Montesinos Torres, in regard to the phone tapping will be
formulated by the end of November. However, access to Montesinos
will be restricted to parliamentarians only; the media will not
be permitted to attend the meeting. As opposed to other meetings
with Congressional commissions, which took place in the National
Palace, this meeting will occur at SIN headquarters. Chavez says
that, “having [Montesinos] coming to Congress would pose a
serious threat to his security.” Aside from considering that
“there is a morbid curiosity surrounding” Montesinos, Chavez
stated that he is one of the principal figures in the fight
against terrorism and drug trafficking and could be “an easy
target.”
Nevertheless, it bears mentioning that, in the past few months,
Montesinos has chosen to make several public appearances, for
example, during the rescue of the hostages in the residence of
the Japanese Ambassador and the launching of a book about this
operation written by the President of the Joint Armed Forces,
General Nicolas Hermoza. During this latter occasion, Montesinos
spoke with several foreign journalists.
Elsewhere, on 20 November, the former director of “Contrapunto”,
Luis Iberico, said that he had new evidence that would permit the
commission to determine where the phone tapping first arose. He
stated that he had acquired some new and supporting documents
that had previously been hidden from the investigation.
“Now we are able to put the pieces together and contribute to
establishing who is responsible for the phone tapping,” said
Iberico, who appeared before the commission. He added that his
appearance demonstrated that the media were collaborating fully
in the investigation. “We are in contact with our sources and, as
long as it remains possible, we will provide more information –
as long as both we and our sources are protected,” he said.
Iberico added that it was well known that not one but two
branches of the armed forces are reportedly implicated in the
phone tapping.
