A protester holds a sign with an image of former president Alberto Fujimori with the word ‘Danger’ during a march against a possible pardon for Fujimori, who has been serving a 25-year sentence for human rights violations, in Lima, Peru July 7, 2017. REUTERS/Guadalupe PardoThe No a Keiko collective and other organizations announced a march for Thursday at 6 p.m. in Plaza San Martín. In this way they seek to make their voice of protest heard at the ruling of the Constitutional Court ordering the restitution of the pardon in favor of Alberto Fujimori.“Today we went out to march against the illegal pardon. For those who are no longer there and for the relatives of the bereaved who see the little justice they found taken away,” they pointed out on social networks.In addition, the NAK collective replied to the tweet of President Pedro Castillo, in which it expresses its disagreement with the ruling of the Constitutional Court and appealed for the organs of international justice to which Peru is attached to caution “the effective exercise of justice for the people”.The activists called on the president to “give justice to the families of the victims of dictator Fujimori, cancel the pardon.”PROMPT RELEASEFormer President Alberto Fujimori could be released next Monday or Tuesday, when judicial and legal proceedings are completed to comply with a decision to that effect issued on Thursday by the Constitutional Court (TC), his defense lawyer, Cesar Nakazaki, reported.“I estimate that, between Monday or Tuesday, the criminal execution judge would already be ordering the INPE (National Penitentiary Institute) release from prison,” Nakazaki told journalists on Thursday.The lawyer explained that the TC must officiate its decision to the supreme criminal execution judge, who must abide by the decision of the highest constitutional body in the country and “give the order of freedom”.“The Constitutional Court, surely, between tomorrow and Monday must send the office, because it is an office of freedom. It must be fulfilled immediately,” he said.The lawyer also said that it will be Fujimori’s family, with his daughter Keiko at the helm, who will coordinate and decide where the former president will live, as well as care for the health problems he has been suffering from for several years. “Tomorrow he was scheduled for pulmonology care, because the reason for the humanitarian pardon was because of cardiological problems, but today they have been aggravated by lung problems, he suffers from pulmonary fibrosis, he spends almost all day with oxygen,” he explained.THE DECISION OF THE TCThe TC confirmed on Thursday that the deciding vote of its president, Augusto Ferrero, decided the nullity of the judicial decision that suspended the pardon granted to Fujimori in 2017, after the vote on the “habeas corpus” appeal that requested that measure was tied by three votes in favor and three against.Ferrero used his decision-making vote, known in legal media as “quality vote” or “double vote”, and also had the favorable votes of José Luis Sardón and Ernesto Blume, who was the speaker who proposed the acceptance of the appeal, while Marianella Ledesma, Eloy Espinosa-Saldaña and Manuel Miranda opposed it.The TC stressed that the judgment that declared the lawsuit founded “restores the effects of Supreme Resolution 281-2017-JUS of December 24, 2017, which granted the complainant a humanitarian pardon, and provides for his freedom” and that the votes of the magistrates “will be published on the institutional website and notified in its opportunity”.In this way, the high court declared that an appeal brought by lawyer Gregorio Parco Alarcón against the Supreme Court ruling that in 2018 rescinded the pardon granted to Fujimori on December 24, 2017 by then-president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (2016-2018). KEEP READING:Carlos Rivera: “Ferrero, Blume and Sardón are fulfilling a political agenda by freeing Fujimori” INTERVIEWAlberto Fujimori: When will the former president of Peru be released from prison? Pedro Castillo disagrees with Alberto Fujimori’s freedom: “The institutional crisis is reflected in the TC’s decision”
