-The Congressman Freddy Díaz was suspended for 120 days. When does he come back? January 7?
—The suspension ends on January 7. As of January 9, he begins his functions.
—Is it possible that the Plenary could approve the report that recommends disqualifying Freddy Diaz before January 7? Or is there a risk of violating due process?
—What happens is that due to the notification deadlines, the hearing in the Permanent Commission has been summoned for January 3. That day will see that case. If the report is approved, it is up to the Board of Directors to convene the Plenary to see this case. Suppose that on January 3 the session of the Permanent Commission ends at noon. Only in the afternoon could you be notified so that on the 4th a date is scheduled to convene the plenary session. It cannot be called before three business days. If we are summoning for January 4, it would have to be January 9 and we would have to summon the Plenary for January 10.
—So, is it likely that when this is voted on in plenary, Congressman Díaz will be there?
—Not likely, he will be there.
-Okay. But what message to give to the population that, with good reason, is outraged by this case? The congressman will return to his duties and is not yet disqualified.
—Unfortunately, it is a case that must be fulfilled, but it has been prolonged because Díaz requested rescheduling of the hearings. Following due process, it should be rescheduled. Unfortunately, he’s going to have to be present.
—Now, in addition to this, what factors determined that this case delayed?
—Basically, that, the hearings, the load of cases in the Subcommittee. There were cases of senior officials that we should have seen in the Subcommittee.
—It seems that the Subcommittee did not have the sense of promptness in the case of Freddy Díaz as it did with other cases.
—We have treated objectively and impartially. There were issues that caused the case to be expanded. The ideal scenario would have been for a vote to be made a long time ago.
—But this case dates from August; It’s almost six months.
—Yes, but understand that this Subcommittee was installed in September. In three months we have dealt with 77 constitutional complaints. What they have not done, not even in a year of management, other commissions. We have advanced with different cases.
—Does the Subcommittee recommend disqualifying for impeachment or also refer the case to the Public Ministry?
—No, what we are seeing is the constitutional violation. The infringement for the subject of the alleged violation is not being seen here. The points that have been evaluated are about the incorrect use of the congressional office, for having sexual relations there, and for drinking with people who were under his control.
“And why not for the crime of rape?”
—Because there is already a complaint in the Public Ministry. That is the competence of the Public Ministry.
—So, in this case, for the crime of rape, does not the political impeachment correspond to you?
—No, because it is a common crime, it is not a function crime; therefore, directly Public ministry has accused him.
—Changing the subject, because I think it would be the last straw if there were benches against disabling it…
—The final report was unanimously approved. The fact is even accepted by him. It would be quite shameful and reprehensible if there were colleagues who endorse this.
– It’s ready final report of the complaint of the Prosecutor of the Nation against former President Pedro Castillo. What is this file going to aim at?
“It’s still a historical fact. It is the first time that a prosecutor of the Nation denounces an acting president. We investigate and propose. Within the work that was done, there was a coup and the president was vacated. Today we have supported and voted on the final report, prepared by the technical team of the commission and the congressman Diego Bazan. Now it is time to submit this report to the Permanent Commission. Defendants will be notified. The fact that they do not attend does not prevent it from being developed and voted on.
Doesn’t it violate due process?
-No. In the Subcommittee we have complied with the notifications. to the former president Pedro Castillo was notified. And he did not formulate any documents. If we do not obtain the release, we have the option to skip the hearing. By majority, the Subcommittee decided that we no longer hold the hearing.
—When would the case of the constitutional complaint against Pedro Castillo and Aníbal Torres end for having interpreted the question of confidence before Congress as denied?
—The delegate in that case is Congressman José Arriola. Next week should be presenting your report to conduct the fact-finding hearing.
—Will that end the complaints or are there more?
-There’s no more.
—In the case of the complaint for treason, are you going to reformulate it? Or will it be archived?
—That denunciation, in reality, did not have strong support. We are going to present a new qualification report to put it up for discussion.
—When Dina Boluarte’s government began, 27 people died in protests. Apart from the National Prosecutor, can congressmen also denounce her?
-Yes of course. They can file a complaint.
—Until now, no one has denounced Dina Boluarte?
They have filed a complaint. Today they informed me that the congressman did it Reymundo Market; but he is a member of the commission: can not make complaints. I think they are going to remove it.
—What guarantees us that the Subcommittee will not be a scenario where there is impunity for presidents whose governments killed people? The complaint against Manuel Merino did not prosper due to the report by Inti and Bryan.
—Well, we are carrying out our work objectively.. This is where the evaluation will take place. If it really constitutes a crime or infraction, it will be resolved as such, in accordance with the Constitution and the Regulations of Congress. In the Inti and Bryan case, I was not part of the Subcommittee. It was another management, with other members.
—So far, President Dina Boluarte has met twice with APP. Is there an alliance? What is APP? Opposition?
—No, right now we are in the position of working jointly with the Executive to cover all the needs of the population. We had an Executive that, far from seeking consensus, turned the population against us. We will be responsible and we will do control work. It is a new government. It will support you in everything that corresponds. If there are questions, we will be there supervising.
—Are they still in opposition?
—We are in a center position; we are not obstructionists. In any case, we are a responsible opposition.