The president of the Constitutional Court (TC), Luz Pachecohe distanced himself from the criteria his five tribunes used to free former Prime Minister Betssy Chávez, accused of perpetrating with Pedro Castillo the coup d’etat of December 7, 2022.
In this interview with Peru21 He defended his vote against and assured that the prosecutor asked to extend the period of preventive detention against Chávez and the judge who ordered that measure acted within the legal framework. Of course, he regretted that with this new jurisprudence, he benefits the hitmen and leaders of criminal organizations.
Why did he oppose the release of Betssy Chávez?
What the sentence does is above all to put in front of the person’s freedom; I share that, but it is also true that both the prosecutor and the judge acted within the legal framework. The majority (of magistrates) highlights that waiting last day, even if it is legal, is somewhat unfair to the person who is in preventive detention, because it may already think that it will leave and then, at the last minute, it turns out that they renew it. In that sense, it seems to me that it is appropriate that attention to this problem has been drawn, but as we have had, he said, a constant jurisprudence, at least it would have been desirable that in the sentence it would be justified.
But is there another reason for you?
The one that has weighs me the most is that, at this time, (Betssy Chávez) is a lady who when she leaves (prison) I know that she will not go to kill anyone. But if the same has not happened with a hitman, an extortionist, having already given this change in jurisprudence, he would now have to apply it to all. So, I, weighted the security of the citizenship and the freedom of this person, who also the Court in appeals of the Judiciary has determined that there are sufficient reasons for the prison, it seemed to me that it was right to leave the issue as it had been done so far.
In the arguments of your vote, you mention that the Prosecutor’s Office and the Judiciary must coordinate to respect the deadlines, is it possible to do that? Because both institutions also manage their times.
I think so, it seems to me that this is the merit that the sentence will have, although I do not agree with everything that establishes (…) I am sure that both the Prosecutor’s Office and the judges will be careful to do these procedures with sufficient time so that the final decision of the judge is carried out within the period of the initial preventive detention. Now, in my vote I clearly showed that the prosecutor presented the request on Thursday (December 18, 2024), which was the last day he had for the request for extension, and on Friday the judge already cited, but for the first useful day that came after Christmas, non -working day; That is, they came on 20, 21, 22 (of December), these days that were non -working holidays and then the 26th was already the audience and decided. So, I think there is a set of circumstances that justified, in my view, the delay that there were and the reasons of the judge to extend the prison.
An issue that you mentioned is that this sentence must be applied to all cases, and this also implies murderers, rapists and criminals. How harmful do you see the failure?
I showed that in the debate, what are we going to do if, for example, it turns out that (the beneficiary) is the ‘monster’ (criminal Erick Moreno Hernández)? Or the leader of one of these criminal organizations? Well, where there is the same right, they have to do it (apply the judgment of the TC) because justice is blind to them. I believe that justice cannot reach that level, because it cannot be of egalitarianism, you have to see the context, the circumstances must be seen, an accusation of coup d’etat is different from an accusation of stealing a cell phone or an accusation of being part of a terrorist organization. Then, their argument (the magistrates) is that this abuse had been done, which I agree, even if it was within the legal framework, it seems healthy to me that this improvement is given, but it does not seem to me that it can be at the expense of applying the same to people who leave will be a danger to society.
Then, from now on, if there were a situation similar to that of Betssy Chávez, would the judge have to release the investigated first, when the period of preventive detention was already fulfilled, and then see if that arrest prolongs?
Yes, that is why, maybe, there must be an agreement in the Public Ministry and, at a general level, agree (with the Judiciary) that the request for extension of preventive detention is presented, as the last day 15 days before (expired the deadline) or a week earlier, what they decide.
Another of the consequences we have seen with the BC ruling is that Chávez’s lawyers have denounced Supreme Judge Juan Carlos Checkley for dictating the out -of -term preventive detention and have also announced that they will do the same with the César San Martín room to confirm that ruling.
I could not advance opinion, but what I want to emphasize is what the judge did is within his scope and it is not that there is an prevaricate, at least it is what I have been able to appreciate, but a call of attention to the judge or the prosecutor would have been made, the sentence does not impute responsibilities; I have also seen that the lady (Betssy Chávez) has published a tweet where she says she will report the state, but those are already decisions of each of them.
But this is what causes the sentence.
That was my fear. I have not supported, like the magistrate (Manuel) Monteagudo, who has also considered that as there was all this constant jurisprudence there were not enough reasons to change the criteria, taking into account the severity of the crime that is imputed (to Betssy Chávez), he has opined the same as me. But, well, the majority is the one who decides.
You also mentioned that the judges should analyze the context, Betssy Chávez is accused of the coup d’etat of December 7, 2022, did your colleagues evaluate this situation?
Yes, it was analyzed and so everyone has considered that the focus of attention should be made that events like this could not be repeated; And it is not about having declared the innocence of the lady, what is decided is simply about preventive detention, and can be lawful, legal and constitutional, that the judge again orders a preventive detention. It may be, because it may consider that it will abuse justice.
What we have also seen is that Chávez’s lawyers, who previously pointed to the TC of being politicized, are now satisfied with the decision and demanded that the sentence be followed immediately.
Of course, I think that demonstrates the double scratch: ‘If you give me the reason, you are good; If you don’t give it to me, you’re corrupt. ‘ And I think that simplification is false, also does a lot of damage to democracy, because there are people who come to believe, that decisions are based on ideological, political, personal interests, and really, as has happened now, I do not share the approach of the other magistrates, but I understand that they are convinced that it is the best.
