Recent news in Peru has sparked strong reactions with the release of former president Alberto Fujimori. This controversial decision by the Constitutional Court has reignited the debate on crimes against humanity committed during his mandate and raises questions about justice and democracy in the country.
Alberto Fujimori, who ruled authoritarianly from 1990 to 2000, was convicted of crimes against humanity, including the massacre of 25 people by an army commando during his presidency. He was sentenced in 2009 to 25 years in prison.
However, the Constitutional Court ordered his immediate release, reinstating the pardon which had been granted to him in 2017 and which had been revoked two years later by the Supreme Court. This decision was justified by the recurring health problems of Alberto Fujimori, who suffers from respiratory and neurological problems.
This release caused a shock wave in Peru, where many citizens are opposed to the idea of seeing a former dictator convicted of crimes against humanity regain his freedom. For them, this decision calls into question the principles of justice and impunity. They also fear that it will reopen wounds that are still raw in Peruvian society, marked by human rights violations committed during the period of the war on terrorism.
On the other hand, supporters of Alberto Fujimori claim that his government managed to effectively combat the Shining Path guerrillas, thereby contributing to the country’s stability and economic development. They highlight the ultraliberal policies put in place by the former president to justify his action.
This release also raises questions about democracy and the rule of law in Peru. Some see it as a challenge to the separation of powers and the independence of the judicial system. They believe that the decision of the Constitutional Court is a political concession and that it jeopardizes the progress made in matters of truth and justice.
Whatever the opinion on this release, one thing is certain: it has caused a lot of ink to flow in Peru and raises fundamental questions about collective memory and the duty of justice. The country will now have to balance the need to come to terms with the past and the search for national reconciliation.