The trial of Alejandro Toledo for corruption generates great anticipation in Peru.

The oral trial against former President Alejandro Toledo and others involved in the scandalous Interoceanic South case, segments 2 and 3, will continue next Monday, August 12, at the Second National Collegiate Criminal Court. The charges against Toledo are serious: he is allegedly accused of money laundering and collusion to the detriment of the state, in a process that has captured the country's attention and generated widespread debate about corruption at the highest levels of government. During the last hearing, judges Zaida Pérez Escalante, Inés Rojas Contreras, and Richarth Quispe Vilcapoma read the testimonies of key witnesses, Marcelo Odebrecht and Jorge Simoes Barata. However, the absence of these testimonies in person has left many questioning the effectiveness of the process and the credibility of the statements being presented. The situation is even more complex due to the interrelation of the cases involving Toledo and other political figures, which has put the trust in judicial institutions at risk. In a parallel development, on August 8, the Judiciary issued a 30-month preventive prison sentence against Toledo in relation to segment 4 of the Interoceanic. Currently, the former president is detained in the Barbadillo prison, where he has already served 18 months of this restrictive measure. This decision has generated mixed reactions among the public, with some defending the need for justice, while others argue that it is a political persecution. Judge Víctor Zúñiga, from the Fourth Pre-Trial Investigation Court, issued the verdict in a virtual hearing. Toledo's defense, which has faced previous setbacks, announced its intention to appeal this latest decision, which will further prolong the judicial process. This case has become a reference point for how justice handles corruption cases and the possibility that high-ranking officials escape accountability for their actions. During the recent hearing regarding segment 4, Toledo made an unexpected interruption to remind the court that he was nearing his 80th birthday, thus attempting to persuade the judge to reconsider his situation. "I don’t have the privilege of being a lawyer, but I want you to know that in a few months I will turn 80," Toledo argued, expressing his concern about health conditions associated with his age. The judge, however, responded that it was inappropriate to interrupt the session to express personal matters. To this, Toledo replied, appealing to his health condition and a diagnosis of cancer and heart problems that supposedly justified his request to be transferred to a clinic. His intervention has been seen by some as an attempt to manipulate the situation in his favor, while others view it as a legitimate concern for his well-being. This is not the first time Toledo has spoken unexpectedly during hearings. In a previous session on July 15, he had requested to be transferred to a local clinic, claiming that his health was delicate. However, the doctor from the National Penitentiary Institute (INPE) indicated that there were no signs of complications that would justify such a request, which has left many questioning the veracity of Toledo's claims. The case of Alejandro Toledo has not only become a symbol of the fight against corruption in Peru but has also highlighted the complexity of the judicial system in the country and the need for reforms that ensure a fair and transparent process. The focus now shifts to the hearing next Monday, where crucial details in this sordid case are expected to be revealed. Peruvian society, weary of corruption scandals, is closely watching the developments of this trial. How this case is handled could set an important precedent for accountability among political leaders and influence public perception of the effectiveness of the judicial system in the country. With a former president in the spotlight, Peruvian justice faces a monumental challenge that seeks not only to clarify a corruption case but also to restore trust in the institutions that should protect the nation.