PERU ELIMINATES PAROLE BENEFITS FOR TERRORISTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L LIMA 001489 SIPDIS CA/OCS/ACS FOR TCOLEY E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/05/2019 TAGS: PGOV CASC PTER PE SUBJECT: PERU ELIMINATES PAROLE BENEFITS FOR TERRORISTS REF: LIMA 1439 Classified By: CDA James Nealon for reasons 1.4b and d. ¶1. (C) Summary: Congress has passed a law that eliminates parole benefits for persons convicted of terrorist charges. The executive had prepared and sent this bill to Congress amid several high-profile setbacks in its continuing struggle against terrorism. In this context, the law appears more an effort to highlight government action against a perceived rising threat than an attempt to keep any specific individual in jail. According to an initial reading, the law should not prevent individuals imprisoned on terrorist charges from accessing the early parole benefits they have accrued to date. End summary. ¶2. (U) In an October 1 plenary session, Congress passed a law that eliminates parole benefits for persons convicted on terrorist charges. Since 2003, individuals convicted of terrorism have been eligible for parole and conditional early release based on credits earned for good behavior (work and study) -- on the basis of one day earned for every seven spent working or studying. According to media and other reports, hundreds of convicted terrorists have benefited from these privileges to gain early release from prison. One reason for the change is that those convicted of other "serious crimes" such as rape of a minor and torture are not eligible for parole. Additionally, some observers objected to the fact that terrorists enjoyed these privileges while members of the armed forces convicted of human rights violations are denied them. (Note: Under the Fujimori government, individuals convicted of terrorism were not eligible for benefits; this was reversed under the Toledo administration following the conclusion of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. End Note.) ¶3. (C) More important, however, was the political context in which the law was written and passed. The executive sent the bill to Congress in the wake of several high-profile setbacks in its continuing fight against terrorism, including the downing by Sendero Luminoso (SL) terrorists of an Army helicopter in the Apurimac and Ene River Valley (or VRAE, an SL stronghold) and the publication of a book penned by SL founder Abimael Guzman in prison, which caught the government and intelligence services by surprise. This was compounded by a flurry of news reports suggesting that the terrorist insurgency might be re-emerging, in some cases fed by convicted terrorists who had benefited from early prison release. Reports that high-ranking terrorist leaders could soon be paroled also fueled support for the measure. Terrorist leaders, Osman Morote (SL) and Alberto Galvez (MRTA) have been reported as eligible for parole next year after completing three-quarters of their 25 year sentences. Prime Minister Javier Velasquez Quesquen and other high-level government officials cited the importance of keeping these enemies of the state behind bars. ¶4. (C) In this context, many observers view the law as an effort to overcome the perception of government inaction rather than an attempt to keep any specific individual in prison. In a conversation immediately following publication of Guzman's book, Minister of Justice Aurelio Pastor (protect) told us he would lead a proactive government effort to confront the rising threat head on, and that stripping terrorists of unjust privileges was the start. The government has begun looking at ways to clarify the legal protections of security forces tasked with combating terrorists and narco-traffickers, arguing that their vulnerability to ex-post facto human rights accusations undermines the state's ability to ensure security and contain the threat (septel.) According to human rights NGOs, the new law stripping benefits from convicted terrorists takes Peru out of step with international human rights law, and other government proposals to clarify legal protections for security forces are unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional. Not Retroactive -------------- ¶5. (C) According to an initial reading, the law cannot be applied retroactively and should therefore not eliminate benefits accrued to individual prisoners up until the date it was passed. A congressional staffer with the Justice Committee emphasized that retroactive application is unconstitutional, and indicated that the law was written so that prisoners would not lose the days toward early parole earned through study and work. Even though the law does not appear to be aimed at individuals, Congressman Rolando Souza, current President of the Human Rights Committee, has publicly named certain individuals - including Lori Berenson, a U.S. citizen currently in prison on charges of collaboration with terrorism - as examples of prisoners who should not receive early release benefits. The Consular Section is seeking clarification on the law's possible impact in connection with Ms. Berenson. NEALON