Peru: Fact finding and advocacy visit report

Executive summary

The 2006 election and return to power of Alan Garcia,1 caused concern amongst human rights organisations within and outside of Peru, fearing that there would be negative consequences on the progress made under the previous administrations in the area of human rights and democratisation. Observers were particularly worried about the president’s negative rhetoric regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission2 (TRC) and the fight to bring to trial crimes involving human rights atrocities which had occurred during the period of internal conflict.

Unfortunately, now more than halfway through his presidential term, Garcia and others in his administration continue to consistently promote policies that validate these concerns, refusing to turn over to state prosecutors the names of military and police officers responsible for human rights atrocities; shelving the National Plan for Human Rights; and publicly accusing human rights defenders of terrorist sympathies. In 2009 the government also initially refused a donation offered by the German government to be designated for the creation and maintenance of a permanent museum remembering the victims of the twenty years of violence. A number of government officials, including the president, defended their decision by making public statements that such a museum would only glorify the terrorist groups. The government only changed its position in early April after a public backlash, led by Peruvian intellectuals, including Mario Vargas Llosa, victims’ groups, and NGOs.

As was the case during a 2007 visit to the country, the primary concerns of the people and organisations with whom CSW met continue to be related to the government’s antagonistic attitude toward anything related to the TRC, its report, and its recommendations. The TRC report presented conclusions on the two decades of violence and formulated a series of recommendations aimed at bringing about national reconciliation, ensuring that the cycle of violence would never be repeated. These recommendations included the prosecution of those responsible for human rights violations, the official exhumation of mass graves and the identification of bodies, and reparations to the victims of the violence. Recommendations for institutional reforms to address many of the problems that had contributed both to the violence and the state’s failures in responding to it were also made.

Unfortunately, more than five years on from the report’s publication, its recommendations are far from being implemented in their entirety. There continues to be significant resistance from influential politicians, political parties and other powerful bodies, including elements in the military, who are implicated in the findings of the TRC. The current administration, under President Garcia, contains a number of individuals implicated in the abuses committed in the 1980s and 1990s, not least, Garcia himself.3 Prosecutors attempting to investigate human rights atrocities committed by the military or police officials constantly find their investigations blocked at every turn. Intero Flores Arroz Esparza, the Minister of Defense, has been particularly hostile and has blocked the prosecution of human right cases by simply refusing to turn over any records which would identify military personnel responsible forcrimes against humanity. Lastly, the government also regularly and publicly disparaged the TRC report as having a pro-terrorist bias and has repeatedly accused those working for the implementation of its recommendations of being Shining Path sympathisers, or worse, actual terrorists, with the aim of destabilising the country.

In July 2005, the Peruvian Congress voted in favour of one aspect of the recommendations, which deals with government reparations to the victims of the violence and would allow for the creation of a national registry of victims. While this was a significant step forward, almost four years later many victims have yet to see any sign of the reparations themselves. The implementation of the National Plan for Reparations has been far from consistent across the country, and some regional governments have failed entirely to implement the plan. In addition, the government has refused to provide any resources for the creation of the Single Registry of Victims, upon which the individual reparations programme is dependent, essentially making the programme non-functional. NGOs and some local government officials are using their own resources to try to build the registry but the task, without any support from the government, is monumental and progress is extremely slow.

One highly significant development in Peru is the trial of former president Alberto Fujimori, which was entering its final stages at the time of CSW’s visit. While most observers believed that the trial had been balanced and fair and were confident of a guilty verdict, concern was expressed at the polarising effect the trial was having on Peruvian society, with the population divided on the question of Fujimori’s guilt and what, if any, prison sentence he should be given. The Garcia government has appeared to be highly ambivalent on the issue, perhaps because President Garcia was also head of state during a period when human rights atrocities were committed on a massive scale, and it is feared that a guilty verdict and significant prison sentence could set a worrying (for Garcia) precedent. There are also concerns that a guilty verdict may be overturned or a lengthy prison sentence reduced by the Peruvian Supreme Court, but it is also clear that the government is very sensitive to the possibility of an international backlash should this take place.

Democratic institutions are fragile and Garcia’s administration has, thus far, shown no propensity to strengthening them. Instead they have attempted to attack civil society through legislation and continue to employ much of the polarising rhetoric and some of the abusive strategies of the not so distant past. However, Garcia is keen to pursue close relations with the European Union and the United States, particularly as regards trade agreements, and is attempting to position Peru to represent the more moderate, progressive, and investment-friendly face of Latin America. This presents a valuable opportunity, therefore, for the EU and other members of the international community, to use their influence to push Garcia and the Peruvian Congress to move the country forward by implementing the TRC recommendations and the National Plan for Human Rights. In addition there is an opportunity to encourage the reforms necessary to make state institutions more transparent and accountable while at the same time encouraging a responsible and active civil society.

Download full report English (153KB PDF)