For 15 years, Juan José Quispe, of IDL, defends the natives accused of Baguazo. Now they could be helpless because the Criminal Appeals and Liquidation Chamber of Bagua applied the questioned APCI law that prohibits NGOs from carrying out cases against the State. Quispe warns that this decision goes against the Constitution.
Why does the court that see the case known as “El Baguazo” decided to take them away from the case just when the new trial will begin?
This is the Criminal Court of Appeals Liquidation of the Superior Court of Justice of Amazonas, which will carry out the oral trial against 16 indigenous people for the events that occurred at station 6, on June 5, 2009: for the death of 10 police officers and injuries of others 18. One of the lawyers of the area asked the Chamber that inaplif crimes where the State is part. We inform the Chamber, we told him that we have already put constitutional actions, which we have communicated to the international community and requested precautionary measures. However, the Court says that the APCI law does not restrict the right of defense of those investigated and that, rather, applying the right that every person has a defense of their free election and given that the lawyers indicated their legal impediment of being able to continue with the oral trial, which has not been said, they are given three days to seek lawyers of their free choice and if not, they can be advised by the public defense. He is getting us out of defense when the request was that he inappropriate that law.
Leaving the processed natives in the helplessness …
Exactly. In a strange way the Judiciary acted, it does not guarantee the defense of vulnerable persons such as members of the indigenous communities, which are not only governed by the Constitution but by Agreement 169, what it should have done is to say that these lawyers who have 15 years by sponsoring them continue with the defense as long as there is no regulation or a formal impediment. However, he took us olímpically in between quotes. But this Thursday that will be the installation of the oral trial, and our sponsor will be ratified that we are going to be their lawyers.
Why can’t you choose other lawyers?
We do not charge human rights NGOs for the services of legal sponsorship to any of the people who submit their case to the institution to which we belong. They are vulnerable people who live from day to day, hunting, fishing. They will not have enough money to hire a lawyer who exercises the right to defense. And if the State gives them lawyers of the public defense, how they will conference with them, because they live in River inside, and the lawyers of the public defense are based in Bagua. Therefore, they will not even be able to raise a defense strategy within the oral trial.
They trust you, as you say, you defend you 15 years. That is fundamental.
It has been a complicated job from the beginning. We traveled on June 6, the day after the events to Bagua, from there we assume the defense of a group of accused natives. And the indigenous community has a very important particularity, it is quite distrustful. Then, generating that empathy, so that they tell us directly how things happened, what they did, what they did not do, but they understood that we were not to put them prisoners, but understood the position of the NGOs, of the Catholic Church, which has always participated through the Episcopal Commission of Social Action. They know that we are going to war in their case. We achieved the acquittal of the 25 in the first instance, unfortunately, the Supreme Court declared void the new trial for 16 people who are now going to this trial.
The Constitution recognizes the right of free choice of lawyers, right?
The Political Constitution of the State, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Civil Pact of Civil and Political Rights, Agreement 169 E the ILO. They are different national and international instruments that guarantee not only the right to an effective defense, which can participate in the trial through an interpreter in their mother tongue.
Isn’t this resolution rare since a few days ago the Court and the Inter -American Commission have ruled against APCI law?
Clear. For us it is a surprise that the Judiciary, in an undercover manner is forcing the members of indigenous communities to seek lawyers other than those who already had sponsoring them for years. And in full oral judgment that generates a quite strong degree of helplessness for members of vulnerable communities.
You carry other human rights cases, is there any other room that is pronounced in that regard?
It would be the first case where covertly, and I would say maliciously, it is interpreted that the APCI law does not violate the right of defense because people can choose other other lawyers from NGOs. Although it has not ruled on the fund, but it has been pronounced in its way of how this APCI law for them does not violate the right of defense, when it is very clear indicated in that law that is considered as serious lacking to exercise the defense nationally and internationally of processes where the State is separate.
What if the Chamber does not accept the request of the defendants so that NGO lawyers defend them?
If the reaffirmation of defense is not worth the room, we will have to challenge it because it is violating the right to a fair trial and is violating the right of defense to the defendants. If they resolve, those judges do not guarantee us impartiality.
