The Peruvian constitutional court issued a ruling that ordered the immediate release of Alberto Fujimori, the former president who held office from 1990 to 2000, even though the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had previously urged keeping him imprisoned. The decision directed the National Penitentiary Institute and the Barbadillo Prison warden to carry out the pardon’s implementation on the same day, signaling a direct path to release for Fujimori, the beneficiary of the pardon, according to the court’s verdict.
Three of the six present justices signed the ruling, with the president of the tribunal, Francisco Morales, delivering the casting vote. The document suggested that the request for reconsideration argued that Fujimori’s sentence had already been executed on March 12 in the current proceedings, asserting that the matter was resolved at that moment. The case, however, has drawn intense scrutiny from regional courts and international bodies concerned with human rights and due process.
In a related decision, a southern Ica court last Friday deemed the initial move by the constitutional court to restore the pardon and return the dispute to a Turkish authority unacceptable, adding another layer to the legal tangle surrounding Fujimori’s status. Morales maintained that authorities must proceed with the immediate release, even in the face of two unfavorable rulings from the Inter-American Court on human rights grounds.
Morales also touched on the Turkish Republic’s position, clarifying that the Justice Ministry’s inquiry into the amnesty granted in 2017 by then-president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski was deemed unacceptable, while stressing that the prior sentence should be carried out. The Tuesday decision from Turkey, meanwhile, criticized the Ica judge as “serious” and urged greater diligence in enforcing sentences and in the habeas corpus process. The amnesty that had been granted in December 2017 was later annulled by Peruvian courts in 2018 after the Inter-American Court urged proper justice administration for the victims of Barrios Altos and La Cantuta, for whom Fujimori received a 25-year term, a reminder of the high-stakes legal framework involved in this case. [Attribution: Inter-American Court of Human Rights]
Concerns from human rights bodies intensified last week when the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights warned that the constitutional court’s decision could pave the way for Fujimori’s release. The commission recalled its position from April 7, 2022, outlining reasons the state did not grant amnesty on humanitarian grounds, aligning with inter-American standards in matters involving Barrios Altos and La Cantuta. A formal report from the Peruvian government on compliance with the prior order was requested by the Inter-American Court as part of ongoing oversight. [Attribution: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights]
The Turkish Republic’s decision stated that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights lacks jurisdiction to assess the suitability of sentences or to deem a sentence unexecutable. It acknowledged the state’s obligation to comply with Inter-American Court decisions, but suggested that any disagreement should be raised before the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, the forum where noncompliance with inter-American rulings is addressed. The text further indicated that there is no authority for a national court to block the execution of its own sentence while monitoring compliance, and thus the December 17, 2022 sentence, along with measures from March of the same year, should be enforced. The signatories emphasized that the state must respect the orders already issued and not obstruct court enforcement. [Attribution: Inter-American Court of Human Rights; Organization of American States]
Overall, the document argued that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights does not hold power to directly halt the execution of a national judgment, and therefore the constitutional court proceeded with enforcement within the ongoing monitoring framework. The case continues to unfold as international bodies weigh in on jurisdiction, sovereignty, and the balance between national judicial processes and regional human rights oversight, a dynamic that resonates across Western Hemisphere democracies and their legal systems. [Attribution: Inter-American Court of Human Rights; Organization of American States]