Political persecution in Peru: Justice as a tool for control and abuse.

In the current context of Peruvian politics, the notion of political persecution has become a hot topic that ignites intense debates. Recently, the justice system has begun to glimpse what many critics have long denounced: the use of the judicial apparatus as a tool to delegitimize opponents and discredit those who challenge the established power. However, there is still a long way to go to eradicate this phenomenon and restore trust in institutions. The annulment of the oral trial in the Cocktails Case is a palpable example of the lack of impartiality in the judicial process. This ruling, which is based on the inclusion of facts not investigated during the preliminary phase, highlights the irregularities that have characterized the work of prosecutor José Domingo Pérez and judge Víctor Zúñiga. The accused, faced with a generic and unfounded accusation, have found themselves in a situation of defenselessness that contradicts the basic principles of any judicial system that prides itself on being democratic. Criticism of prosecutor Pérez's work is not new. The renowned criminal lawyer Arsenio Oré has pointed out in his work "The Denaturalization of the Intermediate Stage and the Infeasibility of the Oral Trial" the structural shortcomings that have allowed these injustices to persist. The lack of precision in the accusations and the inclusion of irrelevant elements have turned the process into a farce, where truth and justice seem to have been relegated to the background. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the judicial system and its ability to administer justice equitably. Cases of political persecution are not limited to a single individual. The Briceño Case, which seeks to intimidate businessmen, and other similar cases reveal a troubling pattern. Unfounded accusations, such as in the case of Jorge Trelles, who is accused of money laundering for the purchase of raffle tickets, are a clear indication of the manipulation of justice for political ends. The request for 22 years in prison for Trelles is a demonstration of the excesses to which justice has been subjected. The behavior of judge Zúñiga has also drawn criticism. Despite repeated requests to rectify the deficiencies in the accusations, he has remained steadfast in his decision to proceed with the trials. This raises a dilemma: Is the Judiciary truly committed to justice, or has it become an instrument serving a specific political agenda? The answer to this question is crucial for the future of the country and its democratic system. In this context, the closure of cases like Cocktails becomes imperative. Justice cannot be used as a tool for political persecution; that undermines the very foundations of democracy. The need to remove and sanction those who have abused their power in the exercise of justice is a demand that resonates increasingly among citizens and political analysts. The recent assumption of Janet Tello as president of the Supreme Court generated expectations. Her speech, which condemned the judicialization of politics, offered a glimmer of hope in a bleak landscape. However, her decision to reject judge Zúñiga's resignation has left many puzzled. This apparent contradiction between her words and actions raises doubts about her ability to implement meaningful changes in a system that has proven resistant to reform. It is essential that the new judicial leadership does not limit itself to empty rhetoric but acts decisively to restore the credibility of the Judiciary. Justice must be impartial and serve all citizens equally. Otherwise, the risk of politics continuing to be a battleground in the courts becomes a real threat to democracy. The fight against political persecution must be a priority not only for the judicial system but also for civil society. Denouncing these practices is essential to eradicate impunity and ensure that justice serves its true purpose: to protect and defend the rights of all citizens. Without a firm commitment in this regard, the country will remain trapped in a cycle of distrust and discontent that undermines the foundations of democracy.