Former President Alberto Fujimori has been denied the status of house arrest and is to continue to serve the remainder of his 25-year-sentence in his private quarters at the police special operations unit, DINOES, in east Lima.
An appeal filed by Fujimori’s new lawyer, William Castillo, to have the former president moved to his home was deemed by Justice Segundo Morales to be subjective and not based on procedural law. Morales said the attorney had presented the case as if the appellant was on trial and not already convicted and sentenced, but then added that the appeal was unfounded because of the crimes committed, which under national or international law are considered human rights violations and not subject to prison benefits, amnesty, prescription or pardon.
Castillo said he would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court and, if necessary, to international courts.
Former congresswoman and presidential candidate Keiko Fujimori, present at her father’s hearing, was disappointed with the judge’s decision.
“What type of danger can a 75-year-old man pose, and one who has so many illnesses? What kind of danger could there be if my father spends his last days with his family?”
Keiko Fujimori was the only relative at the hearing, which was quiet and sparsely attended in contrast to his new trial —postponed twice due to the former President’s poor health and to open again on Nov. 7— which is on charges of using armed forces money to bribe and fund the tabloid press during his administration.
The appeal hearing took place at a special court facility installed at the DINOES compound, were the tabloid press trial also resumes next week.
Fujimori was sentenced in 2009 to 25 years for crimes against humanity in the cases of the murder and disappearance of nine students and a professor from the university at La Cantuta, in Chosica, and the gunning down of a child and several adults at a Sunday fund-raising lunch in the low-income Barrios Altos area of downtown Lima. The trial, held shortly after he was extradited from Chile, was held internationally as an example of impeccable procedural law.
