Keiko Fujimori spoke with clear anticipation about a potential humanitarian amnesty for her father, Alberto Fujimori, who has long been a central figure in Peruvian politics. The idea of reinstating a pardon that was granted six years earlier continues to spark intense public interest. The Constitutional Court’s decision opened a new door for discussions about the fate of a man who ruled Peru from 1990 to 2000 and fled the country to avoid mounting public outcry. The court’s ruling, rather than the outcome of any ordinary political process, has become the focal point around which supporters and critics alike are debating the future of the former president’s fate.
“Court decisions must be followed,” a spokesperson stated, underscoring that this measure would be carried out with the same respect for judicial precedents as other high court rulings. While authorities emphasized the importance of the court’s jurisprudence, they acknowledged that the scope of this particular decision might still be open to interpretation and debate. Inpe, the National Prison Institute, faced questions about whether it would proceed with releasing the former head of state under the court’s new guidance.
As news of the Constitutional Court’s announcement spread, supporters of Fujimori framed the moment as a firm and definitive step toward ending what they described as an unjust blockade against the pardon granted by the former president during the Christmas season of 2017, when Pedro Pablo Kuczynski was in office. For the Fuerza Popular faction, historically one of the most influential groups in Congress, the court’s decision was seen as compelling the execution judge to move toward a final release for Alberto Fujimori.
Proponents highlighted the former president’s health concerns, noting his age and the presence of multiple medical conditions. At 85 years old, they argued that certain documents supporting their position demonstrate the need for his release, contending that ongoing confinement could be detrimental to his well-being. The defense has consistently pressed this line, emphasizing that the health-related argument is a legitimate factor in considering the appropriate course of action for a person who has spent a long period in detention.
Esteemed figures in Fujimori’s circle echoed these concerns, insisting that a release would be justified not by guilt or innocence, but by humanitarian and legal considerations. They stressed that he has endured more than sixteen years in custody, and their position has framed the issue as one of proportional response to age, illness, and the human costs of prolonged detention. The conversation, they argue, should be guided by constitutional values and the rule of law rather than political calculations.
Historically, the situation is tied to broader discussions about the amnesty declared by a president during a period of national upheaval. A year earlier, a judgment from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established that Peru must guarantee justice for victims of violence tied to past political conflicts, as seen in cases such as Barrios Altos and La Cantuta. The IACHR ruling signaled the ongoing tension between domestic legal actions and international human rights obligations, creating a framework in which the government must balance reconciliation with accountability. The current discourse continues to weigh these competing imperatives as authorities assess how to proceed in a manner that respects both domestic law and international commitments.
Among Fujimori’s supporters, there was also a cautious acknowledgment that the final outcome would be shaped by the actions of the government and its fidelity to constitutional norms. The family’s representatives expressed hope that the state would respect the constitution, adhere to the law, and act with humanity, while waiting for developments with a sense of calm and relief. They acknowledged that the IACHR decision remains in force, underscoring the ongoing legal complexities surrounding the case and the humanitarian considerations at stake.