From: tewagner@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Wagner)
Subject: Peru Human Rights Lawyer Prosecuted as Terrorist for Rights Defe
Summary: Human rights lawyer  in Puno, Peru prosecuted for defending boy.
Keywords: peru, law,terrorist
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 06:00:49 GMT



                              VICARIA DE SOLIDARIDAD
                         DE LA PRELATURA DE JULI, PERU

                                    Casilla 295
                                 Puno, PERU, S.A.

                  Telef/Fax:  Country Code 51, City Code 54
                                     Tel:  35-2125; Fax: 35-1574

          SPECIAL REPORT AND REQUEST FOR URGENT ACTION
                        November 8, 1992

PERU HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY PROSECUTED AS TERRORIST
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE

Background of Vicaria de Solidaridad

The Vicaria de Solidaridad of the Prelature of Juli, Peru is the
human righrts office of the Prelature, which is a branch of the
Peru Catholic Church.  The Vicaria, located in Puno, Peru, along
the southern side of Lake Titicaca in Peru's regged altiplano,
focuses on the defense of life.  In that capacity it engages in
such actions as:  denouncing human rights violations such as
massacrees, torture, illegal detentions and other abuses of
authority; assisting in the prosecution of such human rights
violations; defending persons it is satisfied are falsely accused
of terrorism (in Peru today, terrorism charges are very easy to
bring and cary extremely serious consequences; persons detained for
terrorism are routinely tortured and conviction of any terrorism-
related offense carries a minimum sentence of 15 years); and
activities to strengthen existing community organizations and to
promote peace.

The vicaria has a small staff including the director, Maryknoll
Sister Patricia Ryan; a Peruvian attorney, Guido Gallegos; a United
States attorney, a human rights educator, and others.

Vicaria Attorney Charged with Terrorism

On Tuesday, November 3, 1992, Judge Felix Pinazo Ponce charged
Vicaria attorney Guido Gallegos with terrorism.  Under Peruvian
law, the local "fiscal" has 10 days to investigate such a charge,
after which the fiscal must either file the matter or initiate a
case against the accused.  If the fiscal files the matter, it is
referred to the local presiding judge, who has two days in which to
either concur with the filing (e.e., essentially declining to
prosecute) or to initiate a case.  Gallegos is not in detention
during this period.

Given the local realities in Puno, it is expected that even if the
fiscal files the case, the presiding judge will initiate a
terrorism case against Gallegos.  Therefore, as discussed below, if
public and legal opinion is to have an impact, response must be
communicated urgently.

Background of Terrorism Charges

In a recent case against a juvenile charged with terrorism, the
Vicaria assumed a limited defense of the juvenile.  Attorney
Gallegos filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus, pointing out that the
youth was under 14 years of age and, according to Peruvian law, Law
No. 25564, was to be released.  Judge Pinazo, the judge presiding
over the matter, released the juvenile.  Both the Petition and the
document ("Acta") issued by the court referred to the fact that the
youth had been charged with terrorism activities.

Later, a few days after releasing the youth, the judge came to the
Vicaria offices, where he had an angry encounter with Gallegos. 
The judge said that Gallegos failed to inform him that the youth
had been charged with terrorism.  When Gallegos insisted that that
was not true, the judge threatened Gallegos and stormed out of the
office.  

[Note:  under Peruvian law, it does not matter whether the charge
against a minor under 14 is terrorism or not--the minor is to be
released.  Law No. 25564.  But in any event, at all times the court
was aware that the charge was terrorism.]

In response to the threats against him, Gallegos filed a Petition
to the local court (before another judge) seeking guarantees of his
safety.  Attachment "E" hereto.  It was apparently in response to
this Petition that judge Pinazo issued the caharge of terrorism.

The Terrorism Case is a Sham

Attachment "A" hereto is a copy of judge Pinazo's official charge
("denuncio") against Gallegos, in which the judge accuses him of
failing to reveal the terrorism charge against the juvenile. 
Attachment "B" hereto is a copy of Gallegos' Petition for Habeas
Cropus clearly referring to the terrorism charges.  Attachment "C"
hereto is the relevant page of the court's Acta releasing the
juvenile, also clearly referring to the terrorism charge against
the juvenile.

Judge Pinazo's denuncio also suggests that the youth is older than
14, although it acknowledges that the birth certificate, Attachment
"D" hereto ("partida de nacimiento expedita por el Concejo Distral
de Vilque- Chico"), was properly legalized before a notary public. 
The denuncio does not seem to charge Gallegos with any
falsification, or knowledge of any such, of the birth certificate,
but it could be read to suggest something along this line. 
Attachment D, the copy of the minor's birth certificate, shows the
appropriate stamps and signatures.  There is no proof whatever that
this document is falso.  In any event, Gallegos emphatically denies
any knowledge that this document is, or may be, false.

Given these facts, it is clear that the case against Gallegos is a
sham.  In all of his activities, Gallegos was acting properly, and
fulfilling his duties as an ottorney, in defending the rights of
the juvenile.  The Vicaria is unaware of the motive behind Judge
Pinoza's charge, but cannot discount the possibility that this is
a "message" to the Vicaria and/or to the local Catholic church to
stop their human rights work.

Our request for urgent help

Given the justice system in Peru, we cannot count on the fiscal
declining to prosecute and, even if he does, reliable indications
are that the Presiding Judge will demand that the case be
prosecuted.  The only way to stop such a decision, we believe, is
if public and legal pressure can be brought to bear on key persons
in the judicial system, both in Puno and in Lima, listed below.

Therefore, we request that you call, fax, or write by express mail
to the following persons, expressing your concern that the case
against Gallegos is patently unsubstantiated and could be seen as
an improper attempt to chill legitimate and necessary human rights
work.  Please refer to "Puno Case Of.Nro. 3749-92" in your
communication and please be so kind as to send us a copy of any
communications.

We thank you very much for any support you can give and emphasize
again that time is of the essence--Once a case is officially
instituted it is very hard to have it dismissed, even with letters
of support.  Thus, our goal is toprevent the case from being
formally commenced--the deadline for which is November 17, 1992.

Please communicate to:

Fiscal Dr. Leonidas Miranda Garcia
Jr. Cajamarca 527
Puno, PERU
Tel: 51-54-35-1871; Fax: 51-54-35-2217

Fiscal Decano de Puno
Dr. Alfredo Vasquez Catacora
Jr. Cajamarca 527
Puno, PERU
Tel: 51-54-35-1871; Fax: 51-54-35-2217

Fiscal de la Nacion
Dra. Blanca Nelida Colan Maguina
Torre de Lima
Centro Civico, Av. Bolivia s/n
Lima, 1, PERU
Tel:  51-14-33-4520; Fax:  51-14-33-0434

Please feel free to call or write for further information.


                              Sincerely,

Sr. Patricia Ryan        John P. Wagner      T. Guido Gallegos G.
(Maryknoll Sr./          (US atty/Maryknoll  (Attorney)
Director)                     lay missioner)      

Note:  The attachments referenced above can be obtained from me, Tom
Wagner, jstew@acad1.alaska.edu.  Lawyers, judges, government workers, and
academics who want to ensure Peru doesn't abandon basic legal and human
rights in dealing with the Senderista threat are urged to contact the
people listed above.  Thanks.