PERU: Anticorruption Offensive Losing Steam

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Ramiro Escobar

LIMA, Jul 15 2005 (IPS) - A Peruvian law that was struck down just five days after it was passed, which permitted the release of several people convicted of corruption by allowing time spent under house arrest to count towards prison time, heightened the sensation that the fight against corruption is losing steam.

Law 28.568 was enacted by Congress on Jul. 2 and repealed on Jul. 7 because of the heavy pressure from public opinion. But in the five days it was in effect, it enabled the release of Alex and Moisés Wolfenson, the owners of the newspaper La Razón, who were serving five-year prison sentences.

The law allowed time spent under house arrest to count towards overall time served, as is already the case with time spent in pre-trial detention.

A number of people who are being prosecuted for human rights violations and corruption may still be freed under the law, because they applied for its benefits while it was in effect.

The Wolfensons were sentenced to prison on embezzlement and conspiracy charges, for receiving public funds in exchange for putting their newspaper at the service of the government of former president Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000).

Their paper formed part of the popular tabloid or “chicha” press accused of carrying out a disinformation campaign against Fujimori’s opponents.

The publications followed instructions from the former president’s intelligence chief, Vladimiro Montesinos, who along with Fujimori ran a broad and deep corruption ring that permeated all branches of government.

Fujimori, who is living as a fugitive from justice in Japan, is wanted in connection with a large number of human rights and corruption cases. Montesinos is in prison.

As soon as the law was put into effect, the Wolfensons’ defence attorneys filed an injunction with the Supreme Court, which in record time ordered their release.

The decision was based on the fact that they had served several months of house arrest before they were sentenced. When that was added to the time spent in prison, the brothers were considered to have served more than half of their sentences, and thus regained their freedom.

But “there is a big difference between restricted liberty and serving a prison sentence,” lawyer Abraham Siles with the Consorcio Justicia Viva, a group of jurists pushing for reforms of the justice system, told IPS.

Under Peru’s penal code, a judge can order house arrest or preventive detention with the aim of keeping a suspect from evading justice, concealing evidence or committing further crimes.

House arrest does not keep the individual from going to work, maintaining contact with family and relatives, or even leaving the house for health or other reasons, with special permission.

The penal code stipulates that each day spent in pretrial or preventive detention counts as time served towards the eventual sentence. But that is not the case with respect to time spent under house arrest.

Popular TV talk show host Laura Bozzo, charged with embezzlement, continues to produce her television show from her studio, where she is living under house arrest.

Bozzo is accused of taking bribes, which were state funds, from Montesinos in exchange for tearing apart opponents of the Fujimori administration on the TV programme she produced at the time.

When the short-lived law was passed, Bozzo, as well as two former members of the Colina death squad organised by Montesinos and Fujimori, demanded early release based on time spent under house arrest.

Enrique Oliveros Pérez and Fernando Rodríguez Zabalabeascoa formed part of the paramilitary group, which is accused of killing 15 partygoers allegedly mistaken for leftist rebels in Barrios Altos, and nine students and a professor at the University of La Cantuta, in the early 1990s.

Ismael Vega, director of the Peruvian section of Amnesty International, told IPS that several human rights organisations had urged President Alejandro Toledo to object to the law, but that the president “did absolutely nothing.”

Toledo had until Jun. 30, 15 days after the law was approved by Congress, to object to it. But he allowed the deadline to pass, and the law was put into effect on Jul. 2 by the legislature.

The president’s sister, Margarita Toledo, is under house arrest for alleged involvement in a scandal over the forgery of signatures to register the País Posible movement – the now-governing Perú Posible party – in the 2000 elections.

“Making house arrest count as prison time is a kick in the stomach for the already weakened anti-corruption fight,” said Susana Villarán, a former cabinet minister and head of the newly formed Social Democracy Party.

Villarán told IPS that “the outrage Congress committed by approving and then revoking the scandalous law has not resolved the underlying problem.”

The release of the Wolfenson brothers and the possible release of others has strengthened the sensation among the public that “the impunity enjoyed by those who have power and influence is growing stronger,” she said.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Carlos Ferrero told journalists that the Toledo administration “has demonstrated the capacity to amend errors,” because after Congress struck down the law, the government immediately confirmed the revocation.

The anticorruption system put into place in 2000 by the interim government of Valentín Paniagua and made up of special judges and prosecutors dedicated to bringing to justice those involved in the web of corruption mounted by Montesinos made some initial progress.

But it seems to be lagging, mainly due to the slow pace of justice and controversial decisions handed down by several courts, such as the chamber of the Supreme Court that released the Wolfensons.

So far, of a total of 1,567 individuals facing charges, only 95 are in detention, 1,283 have been summoned to testify, 119 are fugitives from justice and 70 are under house arrest.

A mere 39 have been sentenced, most of them to terms of four to eight years.

Montesinos himself, who has spent four years behind bars, has received only one nine-year sentence, which could be reduced.

Activists like Siles say the legal labyrinths have become so complex and confusing that there is no guarantee that those accused of corruption will effectively be held accountable.