People in Peru rally in favor of Pedro Castillo. Photo: Voz de America.
The Supreme Court determined that the former President did not commit the crime of rebellion, which reduced the sentence.
On Thursday, supporters of former Peruvian President Pedro Castillo protested outside the police station where he is imprisoned, rejecting his 11-year sentence for the alleged coup attempt in December 2022.
The Supreme Court’s Special Criminal Chamber stated that Castillo “usurped power” and “attempted to dissolve Congress” without fulfilling the constitutional requirements for such an exceptional measure.
Before issuing its verdict, the Criminal Chamber determined that Castillo did not commit the crime of rebellion, given that his attempted coup failed. Therefore, the judges reduced the initial 34-year prison sentence requested by the prosecution.
Protesters claim the sentence harms those who democratically elected him. Supporters, mainly from rural areas, chanted slogans such as “Strength to the President” and “For justice and dignity, Castillo, freedom!” while carrying flags and banners.
The text reads:
“Firm and transparent justice is a fundamental condition of a democracy. Today in Peru, we have neither. We express our condemnation of the conviction of Pedro Castillo.”
Jose Castillo, the former president’s brother, led the demonstration and thanked the people on behalf of his family. Carmen Castillo, her sister, expressed outrage and her hope that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) would deliver justice, which was not found at the national level.
On December 7, 2022, Castillo announced the intervention of the Judiciary, as well as the temporary dissolution of Congress, in an attempt to avoid a motion of removal brought by the opposition following allegations of corruption.
He was arrested minutes after leaving the Government Palace in Lima, as he was heading towards the Mexican Embassy. His family received asylum there, while he was removed from office by Congress.
During the trial, Castillo pleaded not guilty, claiming his speech was political and not an official message to the nation. He argued that he conveyed a “popular outcry,” while the Court ruling stated that his flight to the Mexican Embassy was an attempt to “secure impunity.”
(Telesur)
