The Government of Peru, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rejected the position of the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, and accused her of not respecting the rule of law and the principle of non -intervention. All this after the Mexican president communicated its total support for the legal process that former president Pedro Castillo follows to get rid of the prison, where he is serving preventive detention for the failed coup d’etat of December 7, 2021.
In that sense, they accused the head of the State of Mexico of “a total ignorance” of the failed coup d’etat and demanded “the same degree of respect that the Mexican government claims in their relations with other state.”
You can see: TC rejects habeas corpus that sought the release of former president Pedro Castillo
What did the president of Mexico say about Pedro Castillo?
What caused disagreement between the two nations was a publication of the president of Mexico in her official X account, in which she communicated her support for the defense of Castillo Terrones.
“I received Guido Croxatto, who heads in Peru the fair cause of the defense of Pedro Castillo. Justice, democracy and respect for human rights must prevail,” Sheinbaum wrote.
Previously, the dignitary invited Castillo’s wife to her command. Since then it was clear that Mexican support for Castillo Terrones would continue with his government.
Pedro Castillo will continue in pretrial detention
HeConstitutional Court(TC) rejected a habeas corpus presented by the defense of theformer President Pedro Castillowhich sought to annul the sentence of preventive detention for its attempted coup d’etat on December 7, 2022. This is one of many demands filed in favor of the former head of state under the argument was an alleged violation of the right to individual freedom.
According to the TC, the lawsuit filed by the Brangil citizen Juan Mateo Blas was filed in a court in Junín, when it had to be presented in Lima, where the events occurred.
“In the present case, according to what has already been indicated, it has been completely clear, without any margin of doubt, that the demand for habeas corpus was filed before a court that lacked territorial competence to meet it,” reads the resolution.
