Washington. In a desperate attempt to gain the support of the US ambassador, former adviser Vladimiro Montesinos admitted that during 1999 “some excesses” had been committed by members of the Armed Forces, although he did not elaborate.
According to a new batch of documents declassified by the State Department, the former adviser acknowledged that “many of the abuses had been committed by members of the Army Intelligence Service (SIE), but not by the personnel of the National Intelligence Service (SIN ) “, which he controlled.
According to the report sent to Washington by the United States Embassy in Lima, Montesinos assured that “the situation had changed positively in the SIE.” The documents do not record any observation or questioning that has been formulated by US
diplomats on specific cases, such as the massacre in Barrios Altos or the torture of former intelligence agent Leonor La Rosa.
It can also be noted that during the meeting between Montesinos and John Hamilton no major references were made to President Fujimori or to the high command of the military.
In the same documents the Berenson Case is discussed. In them, the possibility of a civil trial for the emerretista Lori Berenson is seen and that she can then serve her sentence in a United States prison.
Montesinos and the former US ambassador in Lima addressed this thorny issue in secret on September 17, 1999. At the meeting, Montesinos assured that “the government of former President Alberto Fujimori planned to resolve the Berenson Case by December 1999.” He added that there was the possibility that in the civil jurisdiction the MRE would be sentenced to 15 or 20 years and that the final ruling would necessarily have to be awaited.
However, he pointed out that after hearing the sentence in the civil court, “Lori Berenson Mejía could return to the United States under a bilateral agreement that supports the exchange of sentenced persons” so that they can serve their sentences in their country of origin.
This information, which emerges from the new documents declassified by the State Department, is different from that recently delivered to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. According to the documents, the meeting was held at the residence of the US ambassador, with the participation of other federal officials, who also posed questions related to the Berenson Case.
After Montesinos’ offers, Hamilton sent a reserved report to Washington in which he records the meeting and argues the need to continue consulting on the subject, as well as the advisability of exchanging opinions with other American interlocutors.
Hamilton informed his superiors at the State Department that the former adviser seemed “eager” to be accepted as a “respectable company.”
The “Doc” proposal was raised when the democratic sectors and the independent press denounced not only human rights violations in Peru, but also a conspiracy to perpetrate electoral fraud during the 2000 presidential elections.
There is a lawsuit against him. Peru
Despite being tried again, and under a democratic government, in September of last year the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) sued Peru for the case of Lori Berenson in order that she be subjected to a trial again. The information arrived on the 6th of that month and a 30-day period was established for the Peruvian State to present an ad hoc judge as part of the court. The responsibility fell on Juan Monroy Gálvez, proposed by the Ministry of Justice.
According to the lawsuit, the Peruvian State violated five articles of the American Convention on Human Rights during the civil trial held in 2001, the penalty of which – 20 years in prison – was ratified by the Supreme Court.
Berenson was captured in late November 1995 at an MRTA operations center in Surco. During her public presentation at La Dincote, the woman shouted her support for the armed group. Shortly after, she was sentenced in the military jurisdiction, by a faceless court, to life imprisonment. On June 19, 2001, the United States Ambassador, John Hamilton, asked about a possible exchange of his compatriot with Manuel Áivar Marca, detained in At that time in Miami, he replied that both were separate cases and that there was no responsibility in this regard.