Peru, Supreme Court of Justice. Permanent Criminal Chamber, 9 June 2022, Decisión No. 1509-2021
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
The Attorney General’s (AG) Office requested judicial review (cassation) of a decision issued by a higher Court that rejected the extension of a pre-trial detention measure against a defendant. According to the AG, the pre-trial detention measure was still necessary as the case was complex (with multiple forms of evidence and witnesses) and the Covid-19 pandemic had not allowed investigators to proceed with their duties to gather evidence. Therefore proceedings against the defendant were unable to continue normally. For the appellant, the Covid-19 pandemic was a circumstance that met the “special difficulty” requirement set forth by law to extend the period of pre-trial detention. The Court found that, indeed, the Covid-19 pandemic did in this case represent a “special difficulty” justifying the imposition of a pre-trial detention measure against the defendant, considering the complexity of the case and the anomalous circumstances that did not allow the investigation not to proceed. However, as the investigation phase of the trial had already concluded and the defendant had already complied with the Court’s orders, it rejected the cassation.
Facts of the case
On October 2, 2020, the defendant (the director of a police school and member of an evaluation panel) requested money from several policemen (applicants for an exam that would take place on October 3, 2020) in exchange for all the correct answers. The defendant was charged with the crime of bribery and was detained. The AG requested the extension of the pre-trial detention measure for 9 more months to a lower Court. The lower Court granted the measure. The defendant appealed this extension and a higher Court sided with the appellant, ordering he be released. The AG requested judicial review (cassation), requesting an annulment of the higher Court’s decision. On June 9, 2022, the Supreme Court found the arguments of the AG convincing but did not grant the cassation as the investigation phase had already concluded by the time of the decision.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
PublicDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court reasoned that the pre-trial detention measure, as it interfered with the personal freedom of the defendant, must strictly comply with the law. According to Peruvian criminal law, the period of pre-trial detention can be extended when there is a “special difficulty” for the advancement of the investigation. According to the Court, the Covid-19 pandemic had created a sanitary emergency that met the requirement of “special difficulty” which justified this extension. Pursuant to the Court, multiple forms of evidence had to be gathered physically and digitally and the pandemic had hampered this task. Hence, according to the Court, the case was very complex and the national emergency had created extraordinary difficulties.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court sided with the arguments of the AG. However, as time had passed, the investigation phase was over, and the defendant was already complying with the Court’s measures, the Court rejected the cassation request.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court implicitly analyzed whether there was an equitable standard that justified the pre-trial detention measure against the defendant. According to the Court, as there is a general right to freedom, these types of measures must be exceptional and must strictly follow normative standards. In the present case, the extension of the pre-trial detention followed a legal standard (the “special difficulty” requirement, set forth by the Criminal Procedural Code). According to the Court, the Covid-19 pandemic represented a “special difficulty” that warranted the extension of investigations against the defendant.
