The National Police of Peru removed from its social networks the publications in which the population was urged to participate in the so-called “March for peace”. Even in a video you can see the head of the Dirincri, Óscar Arriola, calling on them to attend this mobilization; this despite the fact that this action would be violating the Constitution, according to the specialist Omar Cairo.
On its Twitter account, the PNP had published a message on December 31 inviting them to gather on the Campo de Marte. In the post in question, police officers were observed along with images of previous marches. When trying to enter the platform now, it tells you that the “page does not exist”.
“March for peace” promoted by the Police. Capture: Twitter
The publication was about a video in which an agent informed about the date and place of concentration of the march. He also emphasized that it will be held in different places in the country. The clip ended showing the institutional logo of the National Police of Peru.
In addition, on January 1, a video was released in which the head of the Dirincri, Óscar Arriola, called on the public to participate in this mobilization. “Peruvian brothers. We invite you to the great national march for peace that will take place this Tuesday, January 3 at 3:00 pm throughout Peru. In Lima it will be in the Campo de Marte. Not one more drop of blood, not one more wounded Peruvian, no to violence”, affirmed the high police command.
For the specialist Omar Cairo, that the Police promote the “National March for Peace” is an infringement of the Constitution and that if it occurs, those responsible would be the Minister of the Interior and President Dina Boluarte. “Article 34 of the constitutional text establishes that members of the National Police cannot participate in demonstrations, and its article 169 prescribes that the National Police is not deliberative,” he said.
For his part, former Interior Minister Carlos Basombrío pointed out that “no officer of the Police or Armed Forces should make calls,” because this type of action corresponds to a political authority and not an officer in office.
