The founding leader of the Peru Libre political party, Vladimir Cerron Rojas, will continue to face the investigations against him in freedom, only with restricted appearance mandate, complying with rules of conduct and impediment to leave the country.
Yesterday, after several evaluation hearings, Judge John Pillaca Valdez rejected the request of prosecutor Richard Rojas to impose preventive detention for 36 months on Cerrón, in the investigation that is being followed for alleged criminal organization and money laundering.
In addition, it weighed in his favor that he already has a mandate to appear with restrictions since January 19, 2017 in the investigation of the Antalsis case, for crimes of collusion, bribery and illicit association.
In that case, on December 17, 2021, the Prosecutor’s Office requested that the appearance be converted into pretrial detention for alleged breach of the rules of conduct, by changing address without authorization from a judge.
Judge. John Pillaca read a summary of the decision. The full resolution will be notified. Photo: diffusion
However, in February 2022, Judge John Pillaca Valdez rejected the request of the Prosecutor’s Office, considering that this situation, an unauthorized trip to Lima, did not disturb the investigations. That decision was confirmed, on May 4, 2022, by the National Appeals Chamber.
Additionally, last week the Constitutional Court issued a mandatory sentence in which it establishes that pretrial detention must be based on concrete and verifiable elements, not on a suspicion, of the real danger of escape or obstruction of the investigation.
severity of crime
The judge considered that there are convincing elements that support the tax investigation for the crime of criminal organization and money laundering.
Thus, he indicated that there is a criminal organization within the Perú Libre political group led by Cerrón that would have obtained money from acts of corruption in the Regional Government of Junín and the municipality of Huancayo, for six million dollars, which would have been transferred to the accounts of the party to hide its provenance.
However, the magistrate dismissed the elements presented by the Prosecutor’s Office of lack of domiciliary, family and work ties that would facilitate his escape and acts of obstruction, considering that they are only suspicions, without having presented concrete elements of an escape attempt. .
The reserved document was rejected
The judge dismissed a confidential document that the Prosecutor’s Office presented to his office, on the last day of the debates, considering that since it was an act that was discussed in a public hearing, he could not take into account said document that has not been made known. of the lawyers, since it affected the right of defense.
