At the Fujimtori Trial: Montesinos and Fujimori meet again--June 30, 2008

Alberto Fujimori and Vladimiro Montesinos, two legendary partners in state-sponsored crime, finally reunite after an eight year lapse. The audience was anxious for this long-awaited encounter. It was unknown what Vladimiro would reveal, if he spoke at all. Since he is currently being prosecuted in separate judicial proceedings that have not concluded he is afforded the right to remain silent in order to avoid self-incrimination. Vladimiro, a lawyer himself, was well aware of this right but chose to proceed. It was at this point that the drama, or what appeared to be a scene from a nightly telenovela, began.

Throughout the Public Prosecutor’s interrogation, Vladimiro remained overwhelmingly arrogant. His dramatic presentation appeared to complicate and in some cases compromise the role of the prosecutor. In general, Vladimiro’s irrelevant responses could be characterized as overly competent legal determinations or sarcastic and disrespectful. In other occasions he claimed that national security could not be compromised and thus revealing the de-classified information was unwarranted. To reinforce the decision to uphold security interests he consistently referenced legal operations within the United States.

The Public Prosecutor’s non-authoritarian interrogation style was not successful in taking the reigns of the court room or in controlling the witness. Rather, the court room remained almost memorized by Vladimiro’s audacity and outbursts. The novella-like drama that took place did not necessarily liberate Fujimori or assist him. However, no blame was directed towards this old friend who would likely reciprocate silence about mutually incriminatory secrets. The friendly, non-verbal exchanges between the former governmental officials confirmed for many the suspicion that these two individuals remained associates.

As the interrogation began with excitement—it ended with relative disappointment. Before the Barrios Altos and Cantuta massacres were mentioned, Vladimiro abruptly announced that he had concluded for the day. He refused to answer any further line of questioning by invoking his right to remain silent. The court room was briefly startled by this communication but some type of dramatization or surprise was expected by many in attendance. The tribunal judges communicated their disappointment with the witness’ swift decision to end the interrogation but this was the extent of the court's capabilities. The relative importance of Vladimiro’s questionable testimony will most certainly not be known for some time but it left the Peruvian public with much to ponder.