Criticism of the Cocteles Case is growing due to irregularities and political motivations.

The trial of the Cocteles Case has been the subject of intense debate in recent months, becoming a hot topic within the country's judicial and political sphere. This case, which involves 49 defendants, has unleashed a whirlwind of criticism questioning not only the legality of the process but also the underlying motivation that has driven it from the beginning. According to several experts, including criminal lawyer Arsenio Oré, the process should be shelved due to its political nature and the multiple irregularities surrounding it. From the outset, the basis of the accusation has been controversial. The campaign donations, which were at the center of the case, should never have been considered a crime, let alone constituted money laundering. This premise has been reiterated multiple times, making it even more scandalous that the case has reached the oral trial phase. Detractors argue that this is a clear indication that the process was driven by political reasons rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. In addition to the substantive issues, there are structural flaws in the process itself that make it unfeasible to continue with the trial. The Criminal Procedure Code establishes clear requirements that must be met by the prosecution. However, prosecutor José Domingo Pérez has presented an accusation that lacks the minimum necessary elements for the defendants to know the specific charges against them and, therefore, to defend themselves adequately. This is a fundamental right that has been ignored. The judge, instead of dismissing the case due to the deficiencies present in the accusation, was compelled to request corrections on 12 occasions, disrupting the established legal order. This scenario has only contributed to confusion and left the defendants in an extremely vulnerable position. The lack of clarity in the accusations is a direct violation of the principle of defense and has raised questions about the impartiality of the judicial process. One of the most concerning aspects of the case is the haste with which the accusation was carried out. According to Oré, the prosecutor abruptly closed the preparatory investigation just before the 2021 presidential elections, where Keiko Fujimori, the main defendant, was running for president. This action has been interpreted as a deliberate attempt to impact her electoral chances, raising serious doubts about the integrity of the judicial system. It is argued not only that the motivations behind the trial are political, but also that the accusation was drafted in a record time of five hours, when the law allowed for a period of 30 days. This rush indicates that the necessary precautions were not taken to ensure that the charges presented were solid and based on concrete evidence. The legal community has begun to raise its voice against what it considers an abuse of power and manipulation of the judicial system. The lack of transparency and the unorthodox handling of the case not only affect the defendants but also undermine public trust in the justice system. In this context, many are demanding that the Cocteles Case be immediately shelved to prevent further harm to both those involved and the reputation of the Judiciary. With public pressure mounting and calls for a fair resolution, it seems that the time has come for the authorities to reconsider the future of the Cocteles Case. Dismissing the case would not only be an act of justice for the 49 defendants but also a necessary step to restore the credibility of a judicial system that has been put to the test. In conclusion, the Cocteles Case presents itself not only as a judicial conflict but as a reflection of the political tensions that continue to permeate the country. The urgent need for an impartial and transparent judicial system is more relevant than ever. Society expects decisions to be made that prioritize justice over politics, thus preventing the judiciary from becoming a tool of control and political persecution.