From Buenos Aires, Guido Croxatto and Eugenio Zaffaroni insist that their client did not stage a coup on December 7.
On December 7, the then president of Peru, Pedro Castillo, tried to prevent his removal with a coup that lasted just a couple of hours. His announcement to close Congress and govern by decree did not come to fruition: Parliament met, proved removing him from power and he was immediately arrested. However, from Buenos Aires, the former president’s lawyers insist that there was no such coup and that his client must return to the presidential chair.
In a note published by the Madrid newsper El Pais, Guido Croxatto and Eugenio Zaffaroni, Lawyers for the former president of Peru affirm that “the attempted rebellion never took effect.”
“I believe that the only way It is the restitution of Castillo and a fair trial. It is the only legal path,” says Croxatto.
According to the El Pais note, Zaffaroni and Croxatto traveled to Peru in February to see Castillo, who is imprisoned in the Barbadillo prison. There, the former president is serving two preventive prison terms, for rebellion and for being the alleged leader of a criminal organization. But the authorities did not allow them to see him because they were foreign lawyers.
Only Croxatto was able to enter his cell afterwards.
From Zaffaroni’s library in Buenos Aires, both lawyers talk to El Pais.
Croxatto deals with the proceedings that removed Castillo and Zaffaroni, former lawyer for Evo Morales and Luiz Lula da Silva, from criminal dogmatics. “They have told us that we are not terrifying and that every time we speak we break the media siege. We will continue to make the case visible”, they maintain.
Why was Castillo just an attempt and why can’t it be said with all its letters that it was a coup d’etat? asked the newsper El Pais.
“Let’s start with one thing: the Castillo case is not an isolated case in Latin America. It enrolls in what is called lawfare, which is used by transnational financial power throughout our region. Monopolistic or oligopolistic media in combination with some judges placed in key positions persecute, criminalize and prosecute the leaders of movements that hinder the interests of financial corporations in America,” Zaffaroni replied.
-The crime of rebellion is only valid if it is consolidated?
-Zaffaroni: Sure, if it is consumed. And if not, there may be an attempt, but the attempt always has to be suitable. Not only is it murder if I kill someone, it can also be attempted murder. But if I want to kill someone with parsley, obviously not. He knew that he had no support.
-Then why did he do it?
– It was a proclamation to say: I’m leaving, but with this I tell the people what they have to do. Be careful, even if Castillo had believed that someone could raise a weon, the attempt is still objectively inpropriate. When I believe and am convinced that by my prayers or by putting pins in a doll I am killing someone, it is an unsuitable attempt, even though I believe that it is effective.
-What is the precedent that is left then? Following his logic, other leaders could try to carry out coups and if they fail, take refuge in the fact that they did not take place. Don’t you think that this is very serious?
-No no. If I fired five shots at him and didn’t hit him at all, obviously, that was an attempt because the medium was ideal. Now, if I only dedicate myself to praying and make a superstitious attempt, the medium is unsuitable. He knew that no one was going to answer. I don’t think Castillo was so incautious, I couldn’t talk to him.
The journalist from El Pais argues before the lawyers that “to defend him they are taking Castillo as if he were a madman who gave a speech where he gave a coup just for giving it.”
“We are talking about a president who was obstructed by 70 projects and we are talking about a Congress repudiated by 90% of Peruvians,” Croxatto justifies.
Source: The Country
Source: Clarin
