Debating Amicus Curiae and More Dubious Testimony: the Fujimori Trial in a Nutshell

Last Wednesday, the Fujimori trial got off to a dramatic start as Cesar Nakasaki, Fujimori’s defense attorney, and Ronald Gamarra, an attorney for the family members of Fujimori’s victims, debated the admissibility of an amicus curiae brief submitted to the court from George Washington University’s International Human Rights Clinic. The debate, which lasted more than two and a half hours, provoked passionate arguments from both sides on an issue that apparently had very little precedence in Peruvian jurisprudence.

Nakasaki, who claimed he had no objection to amicus curiae in general, challenged GWU’s brief because he said it was too closely aligned with the arguments and conclusions of the prosecution. According to Nakasaki, only the court has the ability to request amicus briefs from third parties in order to clear up an issue that is beyond the court's competency. To the contrary, Nakasaki argued, the admission of a partisan amicus brief would tilt the scales of justice to one side, in this case the prosecution, and compromise the impartiality of the tribunal.

Gamarra responded that amicus briefs, in the true spirit of democracy, provide a mechanism for third party actors to take part in the judicial process and communicate to the tribunal the impact of an eventual ruling. Moreover, Gamarra thanked the court for the opportunity to debate the brief’s admissibility but said that the court itself was ultimately responsible for accepting, or not, the conclusions of an amicus brief, making the question of admissibility irrelevant.

Nakasaki, who debated with a flare greater than the substance of his arguments, seemed to lose out to Gamarra’s more prosaic reasoning. In this way, the morning’s debate represented the trial in a nutshell: Nakasaki is a wily defense lawyer and an unquestionably accomplished orator, but he is bedeviled by a weak case. If the argument over the admissibility of GWU’s brief did not sufficiently demonstrate this, the afternoon’s witness, General Juan Briones Dávila, Fujimori’s former Minister of the Interior, certainly proved the point.

Briones, called as a witness for the defense, asserted that Fujimori did not give orders to the members of his cabinet like a general might do to his subordinates in the military. Rather, Briones claimed that Fujimori gave broad directives to his cabinet ministers, who then determined the optimal strategies and tactics to carry them out. As a result, his testimony nicely insulated the former dictator from the organization of the Grupo Colina death squad and the planning of their ghastly crimes.

However, under cross-examination, Briones’s credibility completely collapsed. As Minister of the Interior, he oversaw the operations of the National Police, which investigated the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta Massacres. In spite of that, he repeatedly said that he never inquired about or was ever briefed on Colina’s role in the two atrocities. According to Briones, he continued to believe that the crimes had been committed by terrorist groups within the country, despite the fact that Colina’s involvement was popularly known and widely reported in the press from 1993 on.

There can only be two possible explanations for Briones’s ignorance about Colina: 1) he was completely incompetent as Minister of the Interior, or 2) he was lying to protect his former boss. Earlier in his testimony, he had proudly stated that he served longer in Fujimori’s cabinet than any other minister, undermining the incompetence theory. For 5 years and 5 months, he said, he had served at the pleasure of the President. Given the nature of his testimony on Wednesday, it appears that he still does.

--Hayden Gore