Communication In The Matter Of Guzman v. Peru
Submitted on behalf of Dr. Abimael Guzmanto the United Nations Working Group On Arbitrary Detention
by Leonard I. Weinglass, Esq. and Professor Peter Erlinder
January 10, 1998
- Section I: Identity of the person arrested or detained
- Section II: Arrest
- Section III: Detention
- Section IV: The circumstances of the arrest...
- Section IV: Pre-Trial
- Section IV: Trial
- Section IV: Post-Trial
- Summary
- Recommendations
- Section V: Steps taken to remedy situation
- Section VI: Persons submitting the information
- Index of Appendices
Section I: Identity of the person arrested or detained
Family name: Guzman Reynoso
First name: Manuel Ruben Abimael
Sex: Male
Birth date or age at time of detention:
Nationality: Peruvian
Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention):
Section II: Arrest
Date of arrest: September 12, 1992
Place of arrest:
Relevant legislation applied (if known):
Section III: Detention
Date of detention: September 12, 1992
Duration of detention:
Section IV: Describe the circumstances of the arrest and/or the detention and indicate precise reasons why you consider the arrest or detention to be arbitrary:
As will be shown, the trial, sentencing and imprisonment of Abimael Guzman from beginning to end have been carried out in a manner which is in open violation of national and international rights and standards recognized by Peru. We contend that due to the numerous violations of international standards, the trial and imprisonment of Dr. Abimael Guzman constitute arbitrary detention as defined by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in its January 21, 1992 report.
The immediate background to the arbitrary detention of Abimael Guzman begins with the April 5, 1992 self-coup by President Alberto Fujimori, who with full backing of the military, closed Congress, abolished Peru's Constitution, and placed the judiciary under executive control after the military assault on all the judicial installations and the consequent plundering and destruction of them. President Fujimori dismissed numerous judges and replaced them with people who directly answer to the executive and who maintain their posts on a provisional basis subject to recall by the executive at any time. Mr. Fujimori established by decree, and without the approval of Congress, the unconstitutional and invalid Decree Laws; these Decree Laws deny the most basic rights of citizens, including those rights directly and indirectly relating to individual liberty.
In June 1992, the anti-terrorist law Decree Law 25.475 was enacted, and in August 1992 the treason law Decree Law 25.659 was enacted. The first of these laws created the system of "faceless courts" which make secret the identities of judges and prosecutors, eliminating the possibility of accountability of the judiciary before the public.
With their numerous violations of international standards, these laws and the newly established judiciary under direct control of the Executive set the stage for thousands of people to face arbitrary detention at the hands of the government over the last five years.
The case of Abimael Guzman is foremost among these cases of flagrant abuses of national and international standards, and in fact this case was used by the government to set new legal precedents which have since been applied to thousands of others. We will enumerate the violations which have occurred in Dr. Guzman's case.
(1) Pre-Trial
Dr. Guzman and others were arrested during a violent raid, without legal authorization, on the premises indicated above. Almost all the detained were physically mistreated. In the following hours, Dr. Guzman was taken to the offices of DINCOTE where he was asked to undress himself for a supposedly "routine inspection." This was improperly filmed by the agents and later shown to the press with the clear intention of humiliating Dr. Guzman.On September 26, 1992 President Alberto Fujimori ordered Dr. Guzman and the others arrested with him to be tried under military jurisdiction on the grounds of the anti-constitutional Decree Law Nos. 25.659 and 25.708. Yet Article 282 of the Political Constitution of Peru of 1979, still in effect at that time, clearly establishes that the Military Court and the Military Code of Justice cannot be applied to a civilian except in cases of treason to the fatherland in times of foreign war, which is not the case in the situation of internal war which exists in Peru.
Mr. Fujimori also ordered that Dr. Guzman be tried in a summary military trial, according to the procedural norms of the Military Code Title II: "trial in the site of operations." This violated the following rights: the complete judicial guarantee recognized in the Political Constitution of Peru Article No. 282; the right to be tried according to the norms of due process, the right to defense and the right to be judged by the jurisdiction predetermined by law.
Regarding the cited norms, such as Decree Law 25.659, and having as precedent the fact that the military jurisdiction has as its ratio juris being exclusively military, as recognized by Peruvian internal law, the competency of said court to try Dr. Guzman, who is a civilian, is called into question and indeed invalidated. The argument that the "type of crime" called "treason to the fatherland" legitimizes the competency of said court can not hold because, as noted, the military court by its very character and function is incompetent to try civilians; clearly, trying Dr. Guzman in a military court is a deliberate act negating his right to come before a jurisdiction that is competent, independent, and impartial; a particular situation created to guarantee that he be condemned de facto, disregarding in practice his judicial rights and guarantees; thus confirming the injustice, illegality, and arbitrariness of his detention, trial, and conviction.
Trial of a civilian by a military court violates the guarantee of trial by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal which is set forth in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As pointed out by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, it is a violation of the ICCPR "that persons accused of treason are being tried by the same military force that detained and charged them, that the members of the military courts are active duty officers, that most of them have not received any legal training and that, moreover, there is no provision for sentences to be reviewed by a higher tribunal." The military is in charge of the anti-subversive struggle, and given that the military court is part of the military's institutional structure, and that its members are active-duty members of the armed forces subordinate to its hierarchy and lacking the control of the civilian courts, the military courts are thus part of the anti-subversive struggle. As a result, this openly violates the principle of independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Dr. Alfredo Crespo, the first lawyer for Dr. Guzman, states that this situation is "a violation of the legal principle which specifies that 'No one can be judge and litigant at the same time.'"
Furthermore, Decree Law 25.708, which regulates the proceedings of the crime of "treason to the fatherland" and which was published in the official journal "El Peruano" on September 10, 1992, does not mention the date on which it goes into effect and therefore, according to Article 195 of the Political Constitution of Peru of 1979 which was unquestionably in effect at that moment, can only be implemented sixteen days after its publication, that is on September 26, 1992. Nevertheless Dr. Guzman was placed in the hands of the military authorities and interrogated in the presence of the Naval prosecutor on September 22, 1992. He was thus subjected to a procedure which was not yet applicable to his case, but only to those arrested after September 26, 1992. This is in violation of Article 15 of the ICCPR which guarantees the right of non-retroactivity.
When on September 24, 1992, Dr. Guzman was brought before members of the international and domestic press corps, he was dressed in striped prison clothing and confined in an iron cage in an orchestrated attempt to humiliate him. This was a deliberate attempt to rob him of his dignity before the world and to make him appear as a convict. This display violated Dr. Guzman's right to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person which is protected in Article 10(1) of the ICCPR and Article 5 (2) of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). It was also in violation of his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty which is guaranteed in the Article 11 of the UDHR, Article 14 (2) of the ICCPR, and Principle 36 para 1 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment ("Body of Principles").
(2) The Trial
Dr. Guzman's trial, which took place in the context of martial law throughout Lima, was held on the military base on San Lorenzo island. The judges (and everyone else present in the courtroom except the defendant and his attorney) were all Navy officers, and thus under President Fujimori's direct orders as commander-in-chief, rendering them not competent to conduct a fair and impartial trial of Dr. Guzman. This military tribunal was conducted in the strictest secrecy violating the guarantee of an open and public trial as set forth in Article 10 of the UDHR which provides for a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
The judges and their assistants all wore black hoods. Court officials were identified not by name but by numbers only, and spoke aloud only through voice-altering electronic devices. These "faceless court" procedures violated Dr. Guzman's right to challenge the judges for bias, since it is impossible for the defense to ascertain the identities of the officials.
President Fujimori ordered that Dr. Guzman and the others also arrested on September 12, 1992, be held in total isolation, with no communication at all, even with their lawyers. The lawyers turned to the judicial authorities for help in getting access to their clients, and on September 14, the Attorney General of Peru, Dr. Blanca Nelida Dolan Maguino, told Dr. Crespo the she "could not do anything at all to help" since "the government's order was not to intervene." The President of the Supreme Court, Dr. Luis Cerpa Segura, gave the same response to Dr. Crespo. Dr. Crespo made a direct request to the Chief of DINCOTE that the right to defense be guaranteed and that he be allowed to interview his client. Just prior to the beginning of trial Dr. Crespo ultimately was allowed fifteen minutes with his client to prepare his defense and was only allowed to communicate by telephone from across the room; this was the first and last time they were allowed to discuss the case. During the interview the universally recognized right to privacy of attorney-client communications was violated by the surveillance of police agents as well as by the setting of secret microphones to record it. All this was a severe infringement upon Dr. Guzman's right to communicate with the counsel of his choosing as guaranteed in Article 14 (3b) of the ICCPR and Article 8 (2d) of the ACHR, as well as violating the right to defense and to the assistance of legal counsel in that defense as guaranteed by Principles II para 1 and 17 of the Body of Principles, and a violation of the right to communicate and consult, without delay or censorship and privately, with legal counsel when there are no "exceptional circumstances" to justify such a denial (Principle 18, Body of Principles).
Dr. Alfredo Crespo, Dr. Guzman's attorney was advised of the trial date with only two days prior notice. Despite repeated requests he had been denied access to the case files on numerous occasions and was finally allowed only twelve hours to review eight volumes of material and prepare his arguments. This was in violation of the requirement that defendants be afforded time for the preparation of their defense as guaranteed in the ICCPR Article 14 (3b).
Dr. Crespo faced a systematic policy of harassment, being subjected to 24-hour surveillance and also death threats. On his way to the trial, Dr. Crespo was led blindfolded across minefields by soldiers who told him, "Take care, Doctor, walk slowly, take care with the mines." During the trial Dr. Crespo was led into the courtroom blindfolded and made to sit behind a panel of thick glass. All of this was part of a policy to severely infringe upon Dr. Crespo's ability to defend his client and was in violation of Dr. Guzman's universally protected right to present a defense.
At no time before the trial and sentencing was Dr. Guzman ever informed of the charges against him. Only after the trial was over was Dr. Crespo briefly allowed to see a copy of the indictment, to which he was instructed to respond immediately in writing if he wished to appeal Dr. Guzman's conviction. Since the indictment is still secret and the lawyer is not allowed to reveal its contents, it is not clear exactly what the charges against Dr. Guzman were, although the Peruvian press has said that there were no specific charges whatsoever. This was in violation of Article 567 of Peru's Code of Military Justice. It was also in violation of the internationally established norms guaranteed by the ACHR, Article 8 which states that everyone accused of a crime has a right to certain minimum guarantees, including "proven and detailed communication of the formulated accusation." This right is also guaranteed in the ICCPR Article 9(2).
Under the instructions of President Fujimori, the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and the Supreme Council of Military Justice, the judge ordered that Dr. Guzman be seated during the entire trial on a chair enclosed in a specially constructed steel cage. He was interrogated exclusively about his political and ideological convictions, which demonstrated that these convictions were the sole objective of the "trial," a fact which constitutes a violation of the right to not be judged for personal convictions of whatever kind, which is recognized as much by Peruvian legal norms as by the UDHR Articles 18 and 19 and the ICCPR Articles 18 and 19. At no time was there the opportunity for Dr. Crespo to present any witnesses nor to question any government witnesses on evidence submitted against Dr. Guzman. This is in violation of the ICCPR Article 14(3e) which stipulates that the defendant has the right "to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him." In fact the trial was a mere formality and had all the markings of a political trial since the sentence against Dr. Guzman was given exclusively on grounds of his political and ideological convictions.
On October 7th, 1992 the verdict was announced: guilty of "treason to the fatherland." This announcement was delivered to the national and international press by an "Official Communique" of the Supreme Court of Military Justice -- several hours before the sentence was actually handed down by the Instructor Judge in the hearing scheduled for that purpose. This situation confirms yet again the lack of autonomy of the judge issuing the sentence. In fact, President Fujimori had already announced the date and nature of the verdict, as well as that the sentence would be life imprisonment, before the trial was even conducted. Mr. Fujimori stated that sentence would be imposed on October 7, 1992, and that the second hearing to be held on October 27, 1992, would uphold the sentence from the first case. All of this clearly indicates the totally arbitrary and illegal character of this trial, as carried out under the orders of Mr. Fujimori.
(3) Post-Trial
On October 9, 1992 Dr. Guzman's attorney Dr. Crespo filed an appeal to the Navy Appeals Court asking to nullify the trial and sentence against Dr. Guzman (and against two others sentenced with him) on the grounds of procedural irregularities On October 13, 1992, Dr. Crespo filed an appeal before the President of the Supreme Council of Military Justice. One week later, the Military Supreme Council of Justice reaffirmed the decision. The government announced that all possible appeals had been exhausted and the sentence was definitive.
Dr. Guzman was last seen by his attorney, Dr. Crespo, on the occasion of making oral defense before the military tribunal on October 11, 1992. This was the last contact with Dr. Guzman by someone working in his defense and not yet in custody, before Dr. Guzman entered the isolation period of his imprisonment (a period which has now lasted over five years).
With Dr. Guzman convicted and held incommunicado, the Peruvian Supreme Military Council then informed Dr. Crespo on October 24, 1992 that Dr. Crespo could no longer be Dr. Guzman's lawyer. This was in violation of Dr. Guzman's right to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel.
On January 11, 1993, Dr. Crespo himself was arrested by the DINCOTE after receiving numerous threats to his life. He was brought within a few days before a military tribunal similar to that of Dr. Guzman in its illegality, and convicted of "treason" and sentenced to life in prison. There is much evidence which indicates that Dr. Crespo was harassed and arrested for the "crime" of representing Dr. Guzman.
The arrest and imprisonment of Dr. Alfredo Crespo left Dr. Guzman in the position of having no legal counsel. In the face of this predicament Dr. Crespo's associate, Dr. Carlos Gamero Quispe, stepped in to represent Dr. Guzman. Subsequently, Dr. Guzman's parents-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Carlos de la Torre, retained both Dr. Carlos Gamero Quispe and Dr. Ernesto Messa Delgado to take up Dr. Guzman's defense in further legal actions before the courts in Peru. These lawyers have also suffered threats and harassment.
Because of the extreme violations taking place against Dr. Guzman's rights and because of the severe harassment of all lawyers internal to the country who attempted to represent him and others charged with treason, it became necessary for lawyers from outside the country to join in the defense effort. In April 1993 Drs. Gamero and Messa filed a petition on behalf of Dr. Guzman before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In it they authorized U.S. lawyers Peter Erlinder and Leonard Weinglass, and other lawyers who had participated in the First International Legal Delegation to Peru to join in the defense effort, knowing that it would be impossible for them to personally argue the petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Other lawyers from other countries have also since been authorized by counsel Weinglass to assist in Dr. Guzman's defense.
On April 3, 1993 Dr. Guzman was transferred to a newly built prison specially designed to create a sense of total isolation and deprivation. The design of the cells, built completely underground, ensures that contact, even visual, between prisoners and the outside world (including the guards) is reduced to an absolute minimum. The cells have no ventilation and no electricity or water. Because the prison is situated near the mouth of the Rimac River it may periodically flood. In short the prison facility was designed to bring about a "certain and slow" death, as stated by Mr. Fujimori in April, 1993 in the Argentinean press and transmitted on Channel 13 on Lima television. Mr. Fujimori has described the prison where Dr. Guzman is held as a "tomb for the living." These conditions of imprisonment constitute cruel and degrading treatment which is prohibited in Articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR; the isolation in which Dr. Guzman has been kept is in violation of Principle 19 of the Body of Principles and also violates his right to consult with counsel as guaranteed in Article 14 of the ICCPR.
Mail to and from prisoners is strictly controlled by the National Intelligence Service (SIN). According to the government, Dr. Guzman is not allowed to receive any type of correspondence and is not permitted nor given the necessary means to conduct correspondence. President Fujimori himself controls all forms of possible communication. There is no access to books, magazines, papers, TV or radio (Dr. Guzman was also denied his eyeglasses). According to the government, the only information accessible to these prisoners is via edited videos in a TV room. President Fujimori has openly bragged to the press of keeping Dr. Guzman on "an information diet," on which Dr. Guzman has no access no knowledge of any news (e.g., press coverage or other news sources independent of his captors), and is thus kept unaware of actual developments in Peru and the world. These conditions violate Article 13 of the ACHR and Principles 19 and 28 of the Body of Principles.
Those convicted of terrorism or treason are by the provisions of Decree Laws 25.475 and 25.659 held in complete isolation for the first year of their imprisonment with no visits even by family and allowed no time out of the cell whatsoever. After the first year of total isolation, prisoners are allowed daily twenty-five minutes of sunlight and a walk in the yard, and one monthly half-hour visit with members of the immediate family. In Dr. Guzman's case, on September 7, 1993, Peru's Prosecuting Attorney announced that Dr. Guzman would begin receiving visitors on Sept 12, 1993. Yet since October 11, 1992, with the exception of visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Dr. Guzman has been held in complete isolation from the outside world with no visits from family members, doctors or lawyers. This is in violation of Principle 19 of the Body of Principles which protects the right of the detained or imprisoned person to be visited by family members and to communicate with the outside world.
Every request [detailed below in Section V] by Dr. Guzman's lawyers attempting to visit him has been denied. The right to consult with counsel does not cease once the accused has been convicted and is serving his or her sentence. Principle 18(2) of the Body of Principles applies to both detained and imprisoned persons, that is those persons deprived of personal liberty as a result of conviction for an offense. There are continuing legal matters facing Dr. Guzman [see page 22-23 below] which require his attorneys to be able to meet with him. This denial of access to legal counsel is in flagrant violation of Article 14 of the ICCPR and of Principle 18 (1 and 2) of the Body of Principles which protects the imprisoned person's right to consult with counsel.
This situation of total isolation and incommunicado detention continuing for more than five years constitutes by itself a condition of arbitrary detention. It is illegal because no legal standard exists under Peruvian internal law which allows it, and constitutes a form of treatment which violates Article 10 of the ICCPR, and which has been explicitly condemned by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (Llubreras v. Uruguay, Gomez de Voituret v. Uruguay, 1984 Report; Conerig v. Uruguay No. 139/1983, among others). It is also proscribed by the Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (32, n 1,2; 37 y 39). In the instant case there is a denial of the right of visits by family, the right of the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to receive medical attention.
Dr. Guzman suffers from psoriasis, a skin ailment requiring constant medication and treatment. Reportedly the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has made regular or semi-regular visits and attempts at visits to Dr. Guzman, although it can be assumed that the government's December 17, 1996 ban on all such ICRC visits to those convicted of terrorism and treason (which according to Reuters and AP news reports was finally lifted on December 2, 1997) pertains to Dr. Guzman. The ICRC usually issues no public reports on its visits or on the state of health of those it visits; however, in a July 1995 meeting with Professor Erlinder and dermatologist Dr. Stefanos Papageorgiou, both members of the international delegation which was then in Lima attempting to see Dr. Guzman, a senior representative of the ICRC expressed concern for Dr. Guzman's medical condition. Besides the ICRC, no independent medical personnel have been allowed to visit or treat Dr. Guzman.
Mr. Fujimori has repeatedly and publicly issued direct threats against Dr. Guzman's life. On December 8th, 1992, in the course of his speech at the celebration of Armed Forces Day, Mr. Fujimori said:
"Abimael will be dead within three years."
"Nobody has a long life in the prison where he is held."
In the absence of any independent verification of Dr. Guzman's medical condition, President Fujimori's May 21, 1995 statement raises extreme concern about the health of Dr. Guzman and the lack of medical treatment. In December, 1997, Dr. Papageorgiou stated that:
[See Appendix E.]
Summary
On April 5, 1992 President Fujimori carried out a "self-coup" through which he illegally suspended the prevailing Political Constitution. Mr. Fujimori subsequently enacted Decree Laws 25.475, 25.659 and 25.708 which violate the Political Constitution of Peru and the international accords to which Peru is a signatory, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights. In this context, grave violations of the Peruvian Constitution and of international standards have taken place in the case of Dr. Abimael Guzman Reynoso.
In Annex I of its January 21, 1992 report, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention established principles which are applicable in considering cases submitted to the Working Group. As detailed above, the trial and imprisonment of Abimael Guzman Reynoso violate the following principles under category III concerning "cases in which non-observance of all or part of the international provisions relating to the right to a fair trial is such that it confers on the deprivation of freedom, of whatever kind, an arbitrary character":
A5: cases in which a detained person is denied his right to defend himself and be assisted by counsel
A9: cases of unduly prolonged incommunicado detention
A11: cases in which a detained person is denied his right to communicate and consult with his legal counsel
A12: cases in which a detained person is denied the right to communicate with family and with the outside world
B1: cases in which a detained person is denied the right to be presumed innocent
C1a: trial is not held by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
C1b: trial in which defendant is not informed in detail of the charges against him
C1c: defendant is not given adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense
C1e: trial in which a person is denied the right to examine witness against him and to bring witness on his behalf
C1h: trial in which a person is presumed to be guilty until proven innocent
There has been in Peru since 1980 an armed conflict of an internal character: on one side the Communist Party of Peru, and on the other the Armed Forces of Peru. In this situation, Dr. Guzman has been subjected to a trial at the hands of the armed forces which has been carrying out the anti-subversive war internal to Peru, which lacks the indispensable impartiality and independence. A fair and impartial trial cannot take place when the military is both judge and party to the trial.
Furthermore Dr. Guzman has been subjected to a cruel isolation and incommunicado detention of over five years, having been denied family visits, legal assistance and medical attention from a physician, all of which is in clear violation of his rights and constitutes arbitrary detention.
The conduct of the trial, conviction, sentencing and imprisonment of Dr. Guzman as described above produced numerous violations of Dr. Guzman's rights under both international customary and conventional law. Neither President Fujimori or any Peruvian court has claimed the grounds of a public emergency as the basis to permit derogation of any rights. But even if the conditions of martial law which prevailed in Peru during the period of Dr. Guzman's arrest, trial, and imprisonment were cited as such an emergency, certain rights are still non-derogable: freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 7 of the ICCPR and Principle 6 of the Body of Principles), the right to a fair trial (Article 8, ACHR), and the right of access to legal counsel. Further, the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession must remain intact even during a state of emergency. The conduct of this trial violated Articles 7 and 10 of the Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms in a State of Emergency, 1984.
Recommendations
We respectfully request that the Working Group investigate these violations and find that Abimael Guzman has been a victim of arbitrary detention. We ask the Working Group to find that the condition of isolation continuing for more than 5 years is arbitrary, illegal and unjust.
We further request that the Working Group recommend to the Peruvian Government:
b. That his lawyers immediately be allowed access to him and that he be provided with time and facilities to privately consult with his lawyers.
c. That his isolation from and inability to communicate with the outside world be immediately ended and that he be granted visits from family members, doctors, and others.
d. That he receive in addition to immediate and regular visits by independent medical physicians, any and all medications and treatment prescribed by such physicians.
e. That the detention, trial and sentencing of Dr. Guzman be declared null on the basis of violations of national and international standards.
The following steps have been taken to attempt to remedy the injustices being committed against Abimael Guzman and to gain access to him by his lawyers:
On September 30, 1992 Dr. Alfredo Crespo appealed to the Investigating Judge of Lima to overturn the order for Dr. Guzman to stand trial before the military courts on the grounds that the military court could not be a fair and impartial tribunal. The appeal was denied.
On October 9, 1992, two days after the sentencing of Abimael Guzman, Dr. Crespo filed an appeal before the President of the Navy Council asking for nullification of the sentence by the Investigating Judge.
On October 13, 1992 Dr. Crespo appealed to the Supreme Council of Military Justice to nullify the sentence at the first level and return the trial to the point of presenting evidence, retrying the case in conformity with the legal dispositions that were violated. One week later the Supreme Council of Military Justice denied this appeal, upheld the sentence, and declared that all appeals had been exhausted.
Between September 1992 and July 1995, six (6) delegations of prominent international attorneys, physicians, and human rights workers have traveled to Lima to demand that the Peruvian government respect Dr. Guzman's rights and to attempt to see him:
* Anne-Marie Blanchet-Parodi, lawyer for political prisoners (France)
* Peter Erlinder, President-elect of the National Lawyers Guild (USA)
* Martin Heiming, lawyer for political prisoners (Germany)
* Heriberto Ocasio, national spokesperson for the Committee to Support the Revolution in Peru (USA)
* Leonard Weinglass, lawyer for political prisoners (USA)
Second International Delegation: October 1992
* Nina Baehr, author of Abortion Without Apology (USA)
* Rainer Koch, lawyer for political prisoners (Germany)
* William Martin, Professor of Philosophy (USA)
* Massimo de Santi, coordinator of the international forum the People's United Nations (Italy)
* Maria Navarro, delegation translator (USA)
* Giovanna Pagani, professor and president of the Italian section of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (Italy)
* Ragip Zarakolu, journalist (Turkey)
Third International Delegation: November 1992
* Reggie Majors, journalist and author of books on Black Liberation (USA)
* Mary B. Cox, lawyer, journalist; member of the National Conference of Black Lawyers (USA)
* Craig Everson, lawyer, Aborigine Legal Services, Ltd. (Australia)
Fourth International Delegation: April 1993
* Francesc Arnau, lawyer and member of Colegio de Abogados, Barcelona (Spain)
* Pilar Noriega, human rights lawyer (Mexico)
* Yuri Kochiyama, activist for human rights and political prisoners (USA)
* Phil Farnham, member of the IEC-US (USA)
* Michael Harrison, delegation translator (UK)
Fifth International Delegation: October 1993
* Mario Bustamente, journalist; trade union activist; syndicalist (Mexico)
* Peter Erlinder, President of the National Lawyers Guild; Professor of Law (USA)
* Martin Heiming, lawyer for political prisoners (Germany)
* Haluk Gerger, founding member, Human Rights Organization of Turkey; member of the Executive Committee of World Federation of UN Associations; Professor of International Relations; journalist (Turkey)
* Carolyn Hadfield, member of the IEC-US (USA)
* Eduardo Umana Mendoza, lawyer; judge, Permanent Tribunal of the Peoples; member, Council of the World Organization Against Torture; professor, Universidad Externado of Colombia (Colombia)
* Maria Gomez Pava, delegation translator (Colombia)
Sixth International Delegation: July 1995
* Peter Erlinder, President of the National Lawyers Guild (USA)
* Juan Jose Landinez, lawyer for political prisoners (Colombia)
* Lt. Gen. S. Papageorgiou, M.D., specialist in dermatology, former Air Force Lieutenant General (Greece)
* Carolyn Hadfield, member of the IEC-US (USA)
* The Rev. S. Michael Yasutake, Director of the Interfaith Prisoners of Conscience Project, National Council of Churches (USA)
* Maria Gomez Pava, delegation translator (Colombia)
In April 1993, Dr. Jorge Avendano, President of the Lima Bar Association, interceded on behalf of the Fourth International Delegation to request that the President of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice meet with the members of the delegation to discuss Dr. Guzman's case. This request was refused.
On April 30, 1993 a petition was brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on behalf of Dr. Abimael Guzman and others arrested at the same time. The petition was brought by Peruvian lawyers Dr. Carlos Gamero Quispe and Dr. Ernesto Messa Delgado who had been requested by Dr. Guzman's relatives Mr. and Mrs. Carlos la Torre to take over the defense of Dr. Guzman after the arrest and imprisonment of Dr. Alfredo Crespo.
In October 1993, attorneys Weinglass and Erlinder argued for the petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. After the one hearing and without ever determining admissibility or merits, the IACHR did not take further action on this petition, and closed the file that included this petition.
In October 1993, Professor Erlinder and Dr. Martin Heiming, members of the Fifth International Delegation, presented formal petitions to President Fujimori, to the Supreme Council of Military Justice, and to the Supreme Court of Military Justice. On October 28, 1993, attorneys Erlinder and Heiming went to the Naval Base in Callao where Dr. Guzman is being held and asked the Naval commanders to allow them to see their client. They were given assurance that such a visit by legal counsel was possible, but that approval was required from the Supreme Court of Military Justice. The attorneys filed a formal request to the Supreme Court of Military Justice and were told that the Court would hear their request. That same night, Mr. Fujimori appeared on a Peruvian television broadcast to denounce the request, acknowledging Professor Erlinder by name as counsel for Dr. Guzman, but saying that only Mr. Fujimori himself could authorize such a visit. During the duration of their stay in Peru, the attorneys never received further response to their request to visit their client; they informed the Court that they would return to Peru to see Dr. Guzman as soon as they were advised that such a visit had been authorized. This has not yet happened.
In early 1994, attorneys Carlos Gamero Quispe and Ernesto Messa Delgado learned that Dr. Guzman had been named in eleven cases pending in civilian courts, one involving ninety-three defendants accused of having worked in March 1993 at the newspaper El Diario. In the latter case Dr. Guzman was accused of being the "intellectual author" of the alleged crimes of "terrorism" of which the other defendants were accused. Upon learning this, Drs. Gamero and Messa attempted to meet with their client in order to discuss the pending cases. The possibility existed that the government could seek the death penalty (which had been reinstated in the Peruvian Constitution in October 1993) against Dr. Guzman and it was of utmost importance that they speak with their client to prepare his defense.
On February 18, 1994, attorneys Gamero and Messa went to the Special Criminal Court in the Miguel Castro Castro prison where hearings on the case involving the ninety-three defendants were being held, to request from the Special Judge Investigator of the Navy and the Director the Military Prison of the Naval Base of El Callao authorization for a lawyer-client visit with Dr. Guzman. Twelve days passed with out a response to this petition. Counsel resubmitted their petition before the Special Judge Investigator of the Navy on March 2, 1994, and again on March 14, 1994 they approached to President of the Supreme Council of Military Justice. No answers were ever received by counsel to any of these petitions.
On March 15, 1994 lawyers Gamero and Messa filed an Action of Constitutional Guarantee of Habeas Corpus with the President of the Criminal Branch of the Superior Court of Lima claiming violation of Dr. Guzman's rights to defense, seeking to allow their client to communicate freely and privately with his lawyers and to be attended by a physician and to receive medicines unconditionally, and to end the humiliating attacks upon his dignity. [See Appendix G.]
A judge was assigned to perform an investigation of these allegations. In her investigation, which lasted two days, the judge said that she was prevented by the military from visiting Dr. Guzman in person to investigate the allegations "due to the special conditions under which Dr. Guzman is imprisoned, and also because of the security measures themselves which have been adopted specifically for the purpose of his imprisonment." In addition, the judge alleged that the Naval Base where Dr. Guzman was being held "has suffered from flooding by the Rimac River, which has cut off the means of access and communications.".
The judge stated that she was also prevented from interviewing the authorities accused of violating Dr. Guzman's rights. She stated that it was impossible to interview these officials because "the security procedures to gain access from the headquarters are difficult" so that consequently, she accepted a declaration from a secretary in answer to the allegations.
On this basis, having been blocked from carrying out any direct investigation of the allegations, the judge issued her ruling on March 17 that the habeas petition was "improcedente" or unfounded. She stated that because Dr. Guzman was being held under such high security for his own protection it was doubtful that the government had violated his rights.
In February and March of 1994, attorneys Dr. Enrique Gonzalez Ruiz (Mexico) and Dr. Juan Jose Landinez (Colombia) traveled to Lima on behalf of attorney Weinglass for the purpose of assisting counsel's further preparations in the matter now before the IACHR. They went there to work with the Peruvian lawyers in attempting to gain access to their client. On March 2, 1994, Dr. Landinez filed a request with the Special Investigator Judge of the Navy, with President Fujimori, and with the President of the Supreme Council of Military Justice asking for an interview with Dr. Guzman to discuss the action being taken before the IACHR on his behalf. No response was received to these petitions and said petitions were resubmitted on March 16, still receiving no response.
On July 19, 1995, attorneys who were members of the Sixth International Delegation Professor Erlinder and Dr. Landinez traveled to El Callao Naval Base and attempted to visit Dr. Guzman. They were refused entry by the commanding officer who informed them that he was not authorized to permit the visit which would need authorization from the Supreme Military Court.
The members of the Sixth International Delegation then proceeded to renew the official requests to visit Dr. Guzman filed by members of the International Legal team with the Fifth International Delegation, as well as by Drs. Landinez and Gonzalez. These requests were made to President Fujimori, the Supreme Court of Justice, and the Supreme Military Court. They also filed a new request with Supreme Council of Military Justice. No response was received.
Section VI: Full name and address of the person(s) submitting the information:
We are the international attorneys representing Dr. Guzman in his petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, having been authorized to represent him in all national and international courts by Drs. Carlos Gamero Quispe and Ernesto Messa Delgado and by the relatives of Dr. Abimael Guzman, Dr. Carlos Rolando la Torre Cardena and Mrs. Delia Carrasco de la Torre.
Respectfully submitted,
(signed)
Leonard I. Weinglass, Esq.
(signed)
Professor Peter Erlinder
A. Petition to the Instructing Judge of Lima on behalf of Dr. Abimael Guzman Reynoso, filed by Dr. Alfredo Crespo Braygarac on September 30, 1992 [with unofficial English translation]
B. Interview November, 1992 with Dr. Crespo, cited in "In Violation of International Law To Which Peru Is Bound: The Railroad And Imprisonment Of Abimael Guzman", Craig Everson, pgs. 273-279, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Vol. 4 No. 3, March 1993 [Australia]
C. "Peru Nixes Red Cross Prison Visits," Associated Press, Aug. 20, 1997
D. Interview with President Alberto Fujimori, "Eu Estou Inventando Um Pais," O Globo (Brazil), pg. 40 of the O Mundo section, May 21, 1995
E. Affidavit for the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on the State of Health of Dr. Abimael Guzman, Stefanos Papageorgiou, M.D., December 19, 1997
F. Brief Amicus Commissae in Guzman v. Peru, Rights International, the Center for International Human Rights Law, Inc., before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
G. Action of Constitutional Guarantee of Habeas Corpus, filed on behalf of Dr. Abimael Guzman by Dr. Carlos Gamero Quispe and Dr. Ernesto Messa Delgado before the President of the Criminal Branch of the Superior Court of Lima, March 15, 1994 [with unofficial English translation]
