The lawyer of the Barrios Altos Case, David Velascoreferred to the promulgation of the so-called ‘Amnesty Law’‘ which was approved in July of this year by the members of the Standing Committee and that this action has been criticized by different organizations human rights because it would mean a rule seeking “impunity.”
In this regard, the lawyer pointed out that with the approval of this law they would benefit People who were convicted of crimes against humanity, war crimes. He stressed that by applying this rule, it would be interpreted that the accused had not been given due process and pointed out that among these accused are leaders of Shining Path and the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement.
“There have been several trials in which people who committed these serious crimes were convicted in the context of crimes against humanity in application of this convention. With the norm, it would be interpreted that the convention should not have been applied at that time and, therefore, they could ask that they were tried and convicted in violation of due process and among these people who were convicted, there are leaders of Sendero Luminoso and MRTA for the serious crimes they committed in their terrorist actions,” he said in an interview with Exitosa.
Terrorists would be immediately released under the ‘Amnesty Law’, says lawyer David Velasco
Velasco stressed that members of terrorist groups would be immediately released if their technical defenses decide to apply the questioned rule. In addition, If some of the accused face prosecution, this law would cut off all types of criminal investigations Regarding the crimes of crimes against humanity.
“It would mean immediate freedom because they would be seeking the annulment of their sentence and their proceedings because a rule on non-prescription has been applied, a convention that should not have been applied according to this rule that was just promulgated yesterday. Then they would be free and if they were being prosecuted, their proceedings would be cut short, they would be immediately archived because as they are being prosecuted in the context of crimes against humanity, it would not be their right to continue doing so,” he said.
He pointed out that this law violates international treaties that protect human rights and that this law is an ‘amnesty’ for all people who have committed this type of crime during the decades of the 80s, 90s and 2000s. He said that this initiative has sought ‘impunity’.
“The text of the law actually violates international treaties on the protection of human rights and the convention itself on the non-applicability of statutes of limitations in cases of crimes against humanity and war crimes (…) So, in practice, what it means is something like an amnesty against those people who committed serious crimes against humanity, in the case of our country in the 80s, 90s and 2000s. And as some human rights organizations have called it, it is a rule of impunity in these cases of human rights violations,” he said.
