In an exclusive interview for the Republic, lawyers of former president Pedro Castillo, Martín Piaggioand Carlos Perea Pasquelexpressed their disagreement with Lto the Judicial Branch to dismiss the appeal to replace the preventive detention by house arrest. The lawyers indicated that the Public Ministry He has not managed to demonstrate that Castillo committed the crime of rebellion, since the witnesses presented did not confirm a “weapons uprising”, a key element for this criminal type.
The defenders also questioned the extension of the preventive detention at 36 months, considering it disproportionate, especially when a sentence has not yet been issued. They argued that the electronic surveillance application was based on Legislative Decree 1322, which originally did not exclude the crime of rebellion, but was modified by Legislative Decree 1585, signed by The President Dina Boluarte, To prevent this benefit.
–What do you think of the PJ decision to dismiss the appeal to replace preventive detention for house arrest?
We have learned of the resolution where they make us known the fact that they declare it unfounded (…) We have been very scrupulous with Mr. Checkley regarding his handling as a judge there in Piura. We have verified that the new elements of conviction were that the MP offered as a witness the PCM workers and government palace workers.
Additionally, he offered as witnesses to the 1100 police officers who were in the security operation for the taking of Lima, these new elements of conviction causes the MP to have not been able to define whether there was effectively weapons, the witnesses that he has presented only He asked how, when, what he did, but did not ask if there was indeed weapons uprising. These new elements causes Castillo’s action to agree with the typology because the typology of crime in matters is the one in arms.
-Do not you think Checkley is carrying a fair process?
It seems to me that details of the argument have lac We are noticing that. He can then say that no, it’s 10 years of rebellion, but he spent 2 years in jail, then they could easily give him 8 years, if he wants to give him.
You can see: The Comptroller Clean Dina Boluarte by ruling
-What legal actions come from the defense?
First we are going to give a very eloquent review outside of any passion but a merely legal issue to give this livelihood and make known the corresponding rooms or perhaps a policy tuffer can jump because this is an obvious issue.
-Cas Castillo’s preventive detention was extended, do you consider the measure disproportionate, especially when a sentence has not yet been issued?
Lawyer B: That’s right, the resolution arranged was only 14 months, the Public Ministry made an appeal and expanded this to 18 months, there are 36 months that is the maximum of time in which one can be in preventive detention. Therefore, we request the variation of the measure for electronic surveillance that is not to lift the prison as such but to modify so that Mr. Castillo can continue his process at his home under the surveillance of INPE.
You can see: Dina Boluarte authorizes trip of ministers to the US
-What are the arguments of the Prosecutor’s Office to reject the appeal?
The figure is that at least one element of preventive detention, one just, either roots, etc. Under that formula we have seen that the preventive detention is diluted on that side, the action is not subjected to the type of crime to “rise in arms”, I have seen that the legal community is taking this cost. If the MP says that to get up in arms it is not necessary to have weapons, that does not seem doctrinal. There is no crime of coup d’etat and if it does not have the typology of crime then that man would not be there, justice can be blind but is still equivalent. They see Cana.
-What norms do the request for the change in preventive detention to electronic shackle?
When we ask for electronic surveillance we protect ourselves in the DL 1322 which was published on January 6, 2017, that norm sets the conditions under which electronic surveillance was granted and in that standard it was said in what cases electronic surveillance did not proceed. On that occasion the crime of rebellion was not within this rule; That is, it was appropriate.
On November 22, 2023, the president Dina Boluarte Subscribe the DL 1585 Within the exceptional powers of the Executive in Citizen Security and includes that people accused of this crime are not considered within the electronic surveillance benefit. It is seen that the president changed the rules of the game and included the Crime of rebellion so as not to be considered within electronic surveillance.
How is it possible that President Castillo for a question in discussion is asked for a penalty of 35 years; However, a footballer accused of attempted femicide have they released him? The disproportionality of the PJ in the situations we are seeing.
