Interview with the President of the Supreme Court of Peru: “Who do we choose?”

“Do you know how to handle weapons? You must learn and remember that the last bullet is always for you”. With that phrase, in the 80s, the Peruvian police received a Elvia Barrios Alvarado 25 years old. He was sworn in as assistant prosecutor in Ayacucho, in the south of the country, to investigate the crimes of Shining paththe Maoist organization that sowed terror in Peru.

He recognizes it learned to drive an uzi (Israeli rifle) and also to raise and bury the bodies of prosecutors and judges murdered in that region. He grew up in the judiciary, he was a member of the plenary that upheld the conviction of former dictator Alberto Fujimori and since January of last year she became the first woman in the history of Peru to be elected president of the Supreme Court.

receives clarion in the hall of ambassadors of the Palace of Justice, the same from which he delivered a speech to advance his rejection of the former president’s coup Peter Castillowhen he had not yet been removed by Congress, nor had he been arrested by the police.

At 64, and days after leaving his mandate as President of the Court, he criticizes the countries that defend Castillo, the corruption, the discrediting of Congress, the visit of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights after the protests and the police repression that left to at least 21 dead. He also wonders how Peruvians vote.

– Six Presidents in six years, a discredited Legislative Power, how do you evaluate the institutional crisis in Peru?

-The crisis that exists in the legislative and executive branch has been historic in our country. In recent times, precisely with this Congress, it has become more acute. What is certain and evident is that there is a popular rejection of the two institutions. In the beginning there was always a lot of pressure for both the Executive and the Legislative. And the legislator in his daily work has not done much to gain the trust of citizens. Today, after the self-coup carried out by former President Castillo, all citizens’ eyes are on the Legislature, aimed precisely at getting everyone out, a constitutional alternative is that of early elections.

-Did Pedro Castillo receive legal and fair treatment?

-In the name of the Judiciary, yes. His rights have been respected from the outset by the Judiciary, the GIP mentioned to him all the protocol needed for his intervention, if he had been assigned a defense lawyer, if he had been told what his rights were and made no remark to them. Despite the criticisms that have been leveled at the judiciary, the judges are independent. We don’t do political persecution, we administer Justice. When a judge decides, he doesn’t decide because he engages in political activism, he decides because there is a request from a constitutional body, which is the Public Prosecutor, who in exercising his constitutional powers asks the Judiciary to rule on a certain aspect, for example , in this case in the technical field.

-Has Parliament complied with what was established constitutionally for dismissal?

-This needs to be evaluated later, because there are warrant actions in relation to this. There are habeas corpus actions which have been brought against the GIP’s decision which ordered the pre-trial detention, against the Legislature which at the time had removed his immunity. All of this is legalized, so I can’t qualify this fact. In my capacity as President, when a fact is being prosecuted, I cannot advance or express an opinion. An opinion of mine as head of the institution could be interpreted as a subliminal message or as a mandate to them to resolve a certain meaning. Can there be pressure? Yes, there is always media pressure and the judge must be able to resist. But that kind of pressure should never come from the head of the institution.

-What is your opinion on some countries in the region, for example Argentina, which have signed a declaration asking Pedro Castillo?

-(Silence). Each country knows its reality. I think this is unacceptable interference. First, I think they should have been given a reasonable amount of time, well-informed to take action. Even if we know that they act politically. And in that line you have to take that statement. It is more political than objective and real.

Violence and repression

-At least 21 died as a result of the repression and in the press conference after the Council of State, she was the only one to talk about clarifying the facts…

-What needs to be clarified is not only the deaths of these people who participated in these demonstrations, but also the harmful results that have occurred for the police officers. There are many who are in serious condition. Both things need to be clarified and determined. First, I cannot indicate, especially in my capacity as chairman, how these events unfolded, nor determine responsibilities. That would be completely irresponsible. There’s also a significant number of these people who are with bazookas, who are with magical weapons, we call these conditional weapons that have the effects of a lethal weapon. There is fuel in use. The evidence is that I have a significant number of venues that have been burned, set on fire by these people and have also put the safety of my staff and judges at risk.

-Why are they attacking judicial premises?

-Because in this act of riot violence there is a group of people who have different interests. Inside them are statements by some authorities who are being prosecuted, and there is an interest on the part of some that these trials disappear. So they go to criminal courts, family courts and they are burning my files in those premises. I witnessed a violent, aggressive and tumultuous attack.

-You say they are premeditated attacks?

-Interested.

-What expectations do you have from the visit of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights?

-Understanding in his speech, prolixity in it and serious and motivated pronunciation.

-President Boluarte has decreed a state of emergency and the suspension of a series of rights. He is advised to keep …

-If there is a situation that threatens national security, it is undoubtedly recommended.

Corruption and the Shining Path

-You were a prosecutor in Ayacucho, one of the cities where there was more violence. Can you describe why there is more turmoil there than in other places in Peru?

– Unfortunately, there has always been a state vacuum in our country. For these poor sectors, where there is poverty and extreme poverty, adequate public policies have not been implemented. There have been many political discussions, but very little investment. And that investment has even been affected by the acts of corruption that have taken place in these locations. In the case of Sendero Luminoso, in 1981, when what they called the armed struggle began, we recall that Ayacucho was a population in extreme poverty, there were essential primary needs that had not been covered and logically he settled there as a university professor a Abimael Guzman (the leader of Sendero Luminoso who died in prison last year).

-Does the State not arrive because of corruption?

-No. There is a state vacuum because public policies are not executed and when resources are allocated, logically they are not well executed because corruption is involved.

– A very important sentence has just come out in the Odebrecht case which rejects and complicates former president Ollanta Humala. Does this differentiate the institutional poverty of the Executive and Legislative from the judicial one?

-As a Judiciary, in recent times a series of events has marked a dark path due to the presence of acts of corruption that lived within the power and revealed themselves. In recent years we have strengthened. And if there is something that is marked in this judicial power, it is the independence of the judges in deciding. I have always defended institutional autonomy and judicial independence and I have emphasized that I am not the head of the judges but every judge answers to me for his decisions. We undoubtedly have a significant number of decisions, some decisions are debatable, but in this area what I can guarantee is the independence of the judiciary.

Do you agree with the progress of the elections?

-Every member of the Congress of the Republic must make a profound assessment of what the progress of the election means at this moment. The decision they will make is extremely important for the future of the country. Personalisms are not valid, nor is having closed ideas. We must be open to find a common point that will allow us to emerge from this crisis. We do not want to be a copy of the crises that other countries have had and which have cost so many deaths. Consequently, I think there must be a great responsibility of each of them as a person.

-And in the future?

-In the future, I think the Peruvian must measure and measure who he chooses. Not for those who talk nice, not for those who look like me, not for those who offer me a road. It is necessary to know the personal trajectory of that candidate and see if he has, fundamentally, integrity, which is a supreme value for being a good ruler. It is in us Peruvians that we have a good ruler. Our elections in recent years have not been very good elections, because the sample is that all our former presidents, without expressing an opinion, are prosecuted for crimes, for committing crimes. Some with serious evidence, which is already the subject of an indictment, and others which are under investigation. So who are we choosing?

Lima, special envoy