The Peruvian Constitutional Court has recently made a significant decision to order the immediate release of former President Alberto Fujimori, disregarding a resolution from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). In defiance of IACHR’s resoluton requesting the blockage of Fujimori’s release, the Peruvian Court asserts that the IACHR had overstepped its supervisory jurisdiction to instruct a non-execution of a national judicial judgement. Peruvian Constitutional Court
Fujimori, who served as Peru’s president from 1990 to 2000, was found guilty in 2009 and subsequently sentenced to the maximum imprisonment term of 25 years due to his involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and corruption. The Constitutional Court argued that Fujimori’s fundamental rights were denied over a period of six years due to this blockage of his release.
In a twist of events, Fujimori was pardoned on humanitarian grounds in 2017 by then-President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski following the stipulations of article 118.21 of the Peruvian Constitution. The pardon was based on the deteriorating health of Fujimori. Interestingly, Kuczynski at the time was seeking support from the Popular Force Party led by Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of the convicted ex-president.
However, initial plans to release Fujimori were blocked by the Peruvian Supreme Court following public outcry and extensive pressure from IACHR. Despite this, in 2022, the Constitutional Court upheld the pardon on appeal, deeming it “founded.”
Beyond national implications, this decision has also attracted international attention. The UN Human Rights Office, in a recent post, expressed its concern for accountability in Peru. The Office stressed that “any humanitarian release of those responsible for serious human rights violations must be in line with international law.”
Despite the court’s decision, it appears that the last chapter of Fujimori’s release saga has not yet been written and the world watches on with interest. For our audience of legal professionals, this unfolding case will likely open heated discussions about the power of national courts, human rights legislation and the respecting or ignoring of international bodies’ resolutions in the context of national issues.
For more information, please see the full report at JURIST.