The case against the former president Martin Vizcarra entered its most critical stage. A few days before the reading of the sentence for the alleged bribery in the Lomas de Ilo and Hospital de Moquegua cases, the former president’s technical defense has radicalized his position, delegitimizing the entire fiscal and judicial process.
In interview with Infobae Peru, Lawyer Erwin Siccha, in charge of the former president’s defense, assured that there is direct evidence that disproves the version of the effective collaborators, while launching a serious accusation of procedural manipulation against the Prosecutor’s Office for alleged “shielding” of third parties.
— Most experts point out that the sentence will be condemnatory. Do you share that diagnosis?
I do not want to disparage the knowledge of a series of professionals, but their expertise could only be validated if they had knowledge of the judicial file, which they do not have. We are convinced that the The Public Ministry’s accusation was always factually weak and legally unsustainable.
—The Prosecutor’s Office relies on the forcefulness of the corroborated evidence and effective collaborators. How do they distort that?
This is a very superficial assessment. We have not only disqualified collaborators, but there are direct evidence that proves that they have lied. In the Lomas de Ilo case, where there is only one collaborator, Mr. Elard Tejeda who claims to have met in Lima in November 2013, we have presented journalistic reports, testimonies and public documents which prove that Mr. Martín Vizcarra was in Moquegua. Have they been able to present any evidence to corroborate that information? No, none. There is no direct evidence to corroborate his version. If it is proven that Vizcarra was in Moquegua, how can it be said that that person has not lied?
—What is the key argument in the Hospital de Moquegua case regarding Vizcarra’s ability to condition bids?
At the Moquegua Hospital he is credited with conditioning the signing of a contract. However, since 2011, my sponsor had already delegate that competence to the General Management and, subsequently, to the General Directorate of Administration, whose director signed the contract. The legal question is: How can you condition the signing of a contract that you could not exercise because it was previously delegated? That doesn’t make the slightest legal sense.
— Former President Vizcarra has mentioned an alleged shielding of the Construction Club by the Prosecutor’s Office in exchange for his incrimination. Is there evidence of this?
Completely. For example, for Mr. Hernández Calderón, for the same facts attributed to Martín Vizcarra of the alleged conditioning in November 2013, the Prosecutor’s Office considered the crime of simple collusion and declared the criminal action prescribed. For Mr. Martín Vizcarra, the criminal type is changed to own passive bribery. Where are we? To benefit one, they consider it simple collusion, and for the other, for the enemy, their own passive bribery. There is a very interesting line of investigation into the work of prosecutor Juárez Atoche in this case.
— The Prosecutor’s Office requested the immediate execution of the sentence. Do you think the risk of escape is justified?
Mr. Martín Vizcarra has been through everything: prevention of departure, bail, restrictive appearance, preventive detention. Since 2020 it has been maintained that he was going to escape. When they formulated preventive detention in 2021, his sentence prognosis was thirty years and he did not escape. Martín Vizcarra’s procedural behavior has been impeccable. There should not be immediate execution. We are confident and we hope that the sentence is taken with independence from the powers that currently govern our country.
— In the hypothetical case of a conviction, what would an appeal focus on, procedural defects or the evaluation of the evidence?
He would focus on everything. Beyond the fact that an acquittal should correspond, there have been many irregularities. Vizcarra has been prosecuted twice for the same facts, effective collaborators were excluded without having an approval ruling, and information was hidden from him. But beyond the procedural, the evidence is false. The collaborators in the Moquegua case contradict each other, have hearsay versions, and give absurd time lapses: “I delivered it between 2014 and 2015.” It is a diabolical test. The only thing we always ask for is reasonableness.
— In case of acquittal, will you take legal action against effective collaborators?
Yes, regardless of the decision made by the court, We are going to take actions regarding effective collaborators. Let there not be the slightest doubt. We are focused now on the oral trial, but then we will take all possible actions to punish the guilty.
