Peruvian law students from the Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco have been covering law-related events in Peru, specifically focusing on a case that exemplifies how legislators can exploit their position to evade justice. Their main focus was on the Alejandro Soto case.
In Peruvian law, the concept of “prescription of legal action” exists. This states that legal actions have an expiry period after which they cannot be pursued. Under normal circumstances, the prescription occurs once a certain legally-defined period passes, putting a stop to the legal investigation process. Hence, clarity in prescription laws is of great importance for proper execution.
Peru’s legal system is vastly complex, with three stages: preliminary investigation, the middle stage, and the judgement. A “formalization of the investigation” act signposts the transition from the first stage to the second. The time limits for such investigations have been revised over the years by the legal experts and the Peruvian Supreme Court. However, the recent Law N° 31751 has set new limits for prescription suspension, limiting it to a maximum period of one year.
The Alejandro Soto case puts a spotlight on this law. Soto, a parliamentarian, had 59 criminal files against him, examining crimes ranging from abuse of authority to fraud. His indictments include charging extra fees as a legal advisor, selling lands using fraudulent means, among others.
In a significant turn of events, after Law N° 31751 was enacted and an appeal was made by Soto’s lawyer, the Third Criminal Court in Cusco declared the criminal actions under investigation prescribed, allowing Soto to evade further legal proceedings. No appeal was made against this decision, solidifying the ruling. Moreover, the prosecutor of this case, José Alfredo Espinoza Espino, received a promotion shortly after.
What compounds the interest in this case is that Soto was the author of Law N° 31751, which ultimately proved instrumental in putting a stop to his ongoing criminal investigation. Observers are left questioning whether such complex legal tweaking for personal benefit points to resourcefulness or to manipulation of power for impunity.