Peru May Free Many Who Deny Terrorist Ties

Peru’s mysterious, hooded anti-terrorism judges have put thousands of people behind bars, some of them innocent.

Finally, after years of complaints, the government is taking an interest in freeing those who committed no wrong. But the way it’s being done--by pardoning their “crimes”--has added to the bitterness.

For many, the pardons are a way of correcting a lingering legacy of Peru’s 16 years of political violence in which more than 30,000 people have been killed.

But others say presidential pardons will leave those wrongly jailed with the stigma of conviction because it is forgiveness--not a declaration of innocence.

“For us, the idea of pardon for innocent people is contradictory,” said Francisco Soberon, a human rights lawyer.

But critics are reluctantly going along with the pardon idea because Peru’s justice system is notoriously slow in reviewing terrorism cases.

Take the case of doctors Nery Medina and Fortunato Sumina, who are serving 22-year sentences for supposedly treating wounded leftist guerrillas.

They were convicted four years ago after a confessed member of the leftist Shining Path rebel movement named them as collaborators. But even though their accuser later retracted his allegation, Medina and Sumina remain in Peru’s harsh Yanamayo prison high in the Andes.

“I have always believed in my husband’s innocence,” said Medina’s wife, Teresa. “He never participated in any attack, nothing.”

Teresa Medina is hoping the doctors’ cases will be among the first considered by a commission that began in September to review convictions of people claiming they are wrongly imprisoned for terrorism. It will recommend pardons for those it believes.

Experts say as many as 700 innocent people are erroneously imprisoned on terrorism convictions.

In an August report, Human Rights Watch-Americas criticized Peru’s draconian anti-terrorism law and its system of “faceless judges,” who wear hoods or sit behind one-way mirrors to protect their identities while hearing cases.

The group said the anti-terrorism courts are “incapable of distinguishing between guilt and innocence” because of the law’s lack of due process and limitations on defense.

Defendants cannot confront their accusers, nor can defense lawyers question police or military witnesses. Trials often last only a few days.

Human Rights Watch charged that in many cases police torture defendants into confessing and that others are falsely incriminated by torture victims. The group also said some of those accused of terrorism “were opponents of terrorist groups maliciously accused by members of these groups who were seeking to obtain immunity from prosecution.”

Among the cases the commission may be asked to consider is that of Lori Berenson, a 26-year-old New York woman sentenced to life in prison earlier this year for helping leftist guerrillas.

Berenson’s lawyer, Grimaldo Achahui, said he was considering seeking a pardon but still had to discuss it with her.

President Alberto Fujimori defends the harsh anti-terrorism campaign as necessary in the face of guerrilla violence, but he concedes innocent people have been convicted.

He says the job of sorting out the innocent from the guilty is a “titanic task,” but promises to sign at least 25 pardons in October.

Human rights groups initially opposed the pardon law, which was passed in August. Instead, they wanted a complete revision of the anti-terrorism legislation. They said as long as the law remains in effect, innocent people will be jailed on flimsy evidence, especially given the recent increase in guerrilla attacks.

When the pro-government majority in Congress refused to consider broader legislation, the opposition accepted the idea of pardons rather than leave innocent people in jail.

Jorge Santistevan, Peru’s governmental ombudsman and a commission member, said the law was the best option available. He said it was a first step in correcting the mistakes of the counterinsurgency measures.

“We prefer an unfair pardon to unjust imprisonment,” he said.

The cases of Medina and Sumina are among an initial batch of 50 that Peru’s Pro-Human Rights Assn. plans to submit to the commission.

Medina and Sumina are of special interest to human rights groups because their only alleged “crime” was treating wounded people. Their defenders say they didn’t even do that.

The cases against them were based on hearsay in which their accuser testified he had “heard” that the doctors would provide medical attention to rebels. He offered no firsthand knowledge.

Two years later he recanted, saying police had offered him his freedom in exchange for testifying against the doctors.

Dr. Max Cardenas, president of the Peruvian Medical Federation, said even if the doctors had cared for wounded guerrillas, the medical code of ethics requires them to treat anyone needing it, regardless of politics.

Santistevan said it may take a year to review all the cases because the commission must be sure of each person’s innocence.

Fujimori recently told Associated Press that there was a risk of guerrillas faking innocence and getting out of prison, but he said those caught a second time would face severe punishment.

The Rev. Hubert Lanssiers, a Roman Catholic priest from Belgium who has worked in Peruvian prisons for 22 years, said the risk is worth it.

“The greater risk--which makes me panic--is that we won’t succeed in freeing all the innocent,” said Lanssiers, who is also a member of the review commission.