Martha Chavez and Alberto Fujimori’s Crimes Against Humanity

December 1, 2013 / Posted in  Alberto Fujimori, Fujimori (Alberto), Fujimori (Kenji), Keiko Fujimori, Perú

Martha Chávez (archives of El Comerico Peru)

Martha Gladys Chávez Cossío de Ocampo (born January 12, 1953), a member of the fascist party (Alliance for the Future) sitting in the Congress of Perú in Lima, is to Perú what Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was to Italy, Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was to Germany, and Pope Pius XII, born Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli (2 March 1876 – 9 October 1958) was to the Roman Catholic Church: a fraud, predatory, vicious, vindictive, violent, subhuman and evil tempered quick to toss out, snuff out, and to throw away not only human rights but human lives.

Exhumation at La Cantuta massacre site

Martha Chavez stands tall in the after shock of the Fujimoristas horror when the students from Enrique Guzmán y Valle National Education University (Universidad Nacional de Educación Enrique Guzmán y Valle, or “UNE”, popularly known as La Cantuta, were kidnapped and killed (18 July 1992) by the narco-traffickers and lower level military functionaries of Vladimir Montesinos, the chief spy and head of Alberto Fujimori’s death squads. Nine students were believed to be linked to the Tarata Bombing: Bertila Lozano Torres, Dora Oyague Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando Richard Amaro Cóndor, Robert Édgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Felipe Flores Chipana, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa.  These were the sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, cousins and friends of Perú citizens who sought a better education.  To Martha Chavez, these young people were traitors who deserved death and dismemberment.

Murder victims Martha Chavez hates

The victims were separated from their classmates and spirited away to a fate only matched by the unholy Inquisition the gnawed human flesh from bones by rogue friars and priests of the Dominican and Franciscan orders. Not a single student received a public trial for crimes never specified and which there was no evidence.  The only celebrant of their cold-blooded murder was the one woman with ice frozen in her aging veins: the single most vocal supporter of their mass murder:  Martha Chavez.

At the same time the hoodlums in Montesinos marauders pushed their way into the staff residences, a group of soldiers broke into the home of professor Hugo Muñoz Sánchez, ransacked his bedroom, then gagged the teacher before forcing him to join his students. Like the youth that Martha Chavez so bitterly despises, Hugo Muñoz Sáchez was murdered in cold blood in 1992 by order of Alberto Fujimori. The Mephistopheles of Lima,  Martha Chavez, cancerously has called the victims “garbage.”¹

La Cantuta victims

Once the severed remnants of the human bodies of the students (most who moved to Lima from the rural mountains where education is still weak but the hunger for knowledge is strong and growing) and their teacher were found by a journalist who reported their unmarked graves and sent a map to the police, Martha Chávez, arguably equal to or surpassing the execrable Aufseherinnen, responded to the news by suggesting that the journalist be jailed because, by uncovering the graves, he had tampered with a crime scene.² Chavez tried to silence all dissent, but when she introduced some of the most draconian laws in the history of South America, a not-so-docile Congress rejected them outright.

Patrimonio cultural monumento El Ojo que Llora, Jésus-Maria

Later Chavez draconically, demonically, delusionally,  dementedly demanded that the monument Ojo Que Llora (“Crying Eye”) constructed in memory of the young martyrs assassinated by the fascist Fujimori forces be torn down once a grotesque gaggle of goons fanatically flaying the air in fervor for the Fujimoris wrecked much of it.  Celebrating the carnage, the Peruvian Guiador vowed to finish demolishing the monument herself. ³ This offensively odious opportunist and obscene, outrageous opponent to human rights in Perú pruriently pushed herself onto the Committee of Human Rights. Learning of Chávez sitting on the Commission on Human Rights in Perú, a loud litany of those who suffered for decades under the loathsome legislator’s condemnation of those who suffered under her tyranny and recalled her rancid repugnant role to create a life-long dictatorship of Alberto Fujimori when he was in power.⁴

Mario Vargas Llosa and Alberto Fujimori debate 1990.

Peru’s most fetid, feverishly fanatical troubles began when Peruvian poet Mario Vargas Llosa tied Alberto Fujimori in the 1990 election. His most devoted readers hoped he would lose, fearing if Vargas Llosa won he would surrender a promising career as a premier writer.⁵

Vladimir Montesinos moved menacingly toward Vargas Llosa. The senior spy for a cannibalizing dictatorship spawned with Fujimori winning the run-off election made it clear that Vargas Llosa would suffer a fate worse than death if he defied the vesuvian house of Alberto Fujimori and his daughter Keiko whom the one-time professor named as the First Lady of Perú after torturing and divorcing his first wife, Susana Shizuko Higuchi Miyagawa (born April 26, 1950).⁶  Vargas Llosa fled to Spain, a nation that granted him full citizenship in 1993.

Even before the time Fujimori officially took office, unexplained, undeclared, and uninvestigated deaths and state suppression of human rights and civil liberties mushroomed like a gigantic grey cloud engulfing all of Perú so that a feeding frenzy of fear permeated everything and everyone.  When the citizens of Perú, once more under a dangerously demented wyvern washed with wreaths putrefied with perdition demanded justice, Congresswoman Chavez cavalierly rejected any call for an investigation into irregularities, bribes, extortion, blackmail and threats, pushing petitions past her desk and into the wastebasket of time.

The night the Peru police raided Callo warehouse filled with cocaine, the police visited Kenji Fujimori who was part owner.

Not once would Martha Chávez entertain any serious call to seek out, investigate of bring the throng of thugs that worked for Alberto Fujimori (and later his children Keiko who planned to buy the election with bags of rice to the poor, or Kenji who was in a constant somersault of strive and swipes at the police or battering them when beer took its hold over the young alcoholic, when not dealing in cocaine as his father did, as defined by the police in Lima when they discovered 100 kg of cocaine in a warehouse with ties to the erstwhile son and heir⁷) with the winsome wisdom that the mentally deranged denizen in Montesinos encampment were preserving the state and its fragile democracy. The democracy quickly slipped away as Fujimori became the despot that denizens before had known, but with a twist of arsenic laced between the layers of piety and praise, as Fujimori had the support of Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne–but not of the entire Roman Catholic Church in Perú.

Perú massacre and Truth Commission

Chavez has, for years, been the perennial princess of Peruvian plutocrats and panderers, and pushers of narcotics from marijuana to cocaine continued to give out preferences to the bandits of industry and land.⁸ When Peruvians demanded an accounting of the deeds of Fujimori’s henchmen, Chavez responded negatively with no hesitation.  Chavez agreed to work on “the problem” only when there were questions, primarily from Chavez, as to the veracity of the original Lerner Febres Commission’s findings of serious crimes in the Fujimori administration and charges to be brought the dictator who had flown to Japan into voluntary exile⁹–a repeat of when Alan Gabriel Ludwig García Pérez (born 23 May 1949) flew to Columbia and then to France, after Perú went nearly bankrupt a decade earlier to escape the fires of public opposition belching into an incendiary call for his being held accountable for the suffering of the people of Perú who blamed Garcia for the disappearance and murder of hundreds of Peruvians.¹⁰

Lerner Febres and Chavez

Only by stealth, a slight twist of the hand, a whispered word in the ear of a close confident who was known to be discreet and willing to risk all to please one in favor who could raise the supplicant up to a higher status or obtain for the humbled a better place at the economic banquet of bankrupt governing was the faun and fable brought together so that the cunning, crafty, calloused Chavez could be chosen as coordinator of a group tasked to investigate Human Rights abuses for a new Justice Commission.  Chavez was determined the Second Commission would not be a carbon copy of the earlier one, as her supporters required satisfaction and restitution at the expense of those killed and who had their cars bombed, blasted, burnt, and destroyed. Chávez’ appointment was denounced immediately, not just by the people who toiled for a few soles nuevo so that the super-rich could rake in millions, but also by those sitting in concert to judge the past.  Since “there was no quorum” who had such power as to appoint anyone to the Commission was illegal: a constitutional reality according to the Chief Clerk of Perú’s Parliament Javier Angeles.

Juan Jiménez Prime Minister of Perú

Lackadaisically it seemed, from the initial sitting of the newly ordained Peru Commission on Human Rights, Martha Chavez was loud in proclaiming the right of Alberto Fujimori and his supporters to defend freedom regardless of the cost.  She denounced the president of the Council of Ministers, Juan Federico Jiménez Mayor (born 5 August 1964) is a Peruvian politician who was Prime Minister of Peru from July 2012 to October 2013, as a zero, and shouted for him to go home, fretting that Ollanta Moisés Humala Tasso (born June 27, 1962) was not taking strong steps to beef up the bloated military budget that consumes most of the GNP.¹¹ Chávez’ retrograde reactionary role was further revealed in her contempt that First Lady Nadine Heredia Alarcón de Humala (born in Lima , 25 May 1976) was beside her husband in the Civic Military Parade.¹² When objections became increasingly stronger and more vocal, Chavez claimed that those who sought her ouster were the families of the victims of La Cantuta and their cries should be ignored.¹³

Heriberto Benitez

Perú Congresista Heriberto Manuel Benítez Rivas (born 4 October 1959) noted, “This report (from the senior officer) shows that during the session when Martha Chávez was elected there was no quorum, so that session is null, not worth the votes nor worth the signatures, not worth the meeting nor worth the act of choosing (her). ¹⁴  All of Perú can rest easy because Martha Chávez is not the Human Rights coordinator, and her selection has been declared invalid.”¹⁵   What is dramatic in Benitez’ testimony, was that Chavez was elected with his vote that only recently he admitted was a “political error.”¹⁶ An error in judgment, an error in time spent, an error at the expense not only of the people of Peru but of democracy that was still in diapers in Perú.

Diego García-Sayán Larrabure

Chavez had condemned the Court of Human Rights claiming that it “has been captured by an ideology” noting that Diego García-Sayán Larrabure (born in Brooklyn, New York on 2 August 1950) “is a Marxist, and since the USA does not recognize it nothing is done.” ¹⁷ After blasting the Court of Human rights, Chavez made the statement that “Alberto Fujimori respected human rights in his government” and when asked about the atrocities of the Colina group of Fujimorista terrorists, Chavez brushed aside the criticism by claiming that “Fujimori did not need Cantuta or Barrios Altos” and that the assassinations were done by “a group of soldiers who had become “sickened” over the ten year civil war “and began to take the law into their own hands. That does not mean they are systematic human rights violators.” Chavez claimed that “all were activists (Shining) Path” including Gisela Ortiz, sister of one of the victims, according to testimony” to which she was privy. Justifying the atrocities, Chavez summed up her rejection of trying Fujimoristas who slaughtered students: “In a war you have to kill or be killed,” said Chavez.

Leonor La Rosa Bustamante

Chávez claimed that Leonor La Rosa Bustamante, an agent of the Fuerza Popular, was tortured from January to February 1997 under orders from Fujimori, could be found dancing in a disco. When Peruvians demanded the restoration of the death penalty, Chávez with the backing of Cipriani Thorne, a fervent member of Opus Dei, refused, claiming that were was insufficient grounds to restore the death penalty in Perú since, La Rosa denounced torture by military commanders (there is substantial evidence against Richard Anderson Kohatsu, who now lives on the fifth floor of 1630 Connecticut Avenue in Washington, DC, USA with political immunity), and to bring her abusers to trial would add additional “suffering” to “three three or four military families.”  She said nothing about the families of neither the students who died at the hands of the military nor the suffering their parents experienced when it was revealed that their bodies were dismembered and parts buried in different areas.¹⁸  La Rosa now lives in Sweden.

Martha Chávez (L) and Monseñor Luis Barnbarén (R)

Past president of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference Monseñor Luis Barnbarén Gastelumendi, whose lack of any knowledge of history, especially church history, is startling¹⁹  told reporters that “We must listen to the people who had negative experiences with the management of the Human Rights commission,” especially those directed at Martha Chavez, noting that Chavez as an observer on the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation Commission considered the Parliamentary Popular Force “is not suitable for the post” since during the Fujimori period there were numerous assaults on basic human rights.  The Bishop Emeritus of Chimbote noted that Chavez had approached him and “told me clearly” that the issue of the kidnapping of the students at the University La Cantuta was a self-kidnapping before they were executed by the Colinas group. On hearing this Fujimori tweeted that the bishop had forgotten the eighth commandment (against bearing false witness).²⁰

Claudia Cisneros

The veracity of Martha Chavez has been called into question frequently, but not with the force of conviction as came from the complaint of the journalist Claudia Consuelo Cisneros Méndez (born in Lima, 30 March de 1969 -) who intoned that the congresswoman “abuses her power to shoot insults left and right” against those who criticized her appointment as coordinator of the rights group. Cisneros commented further, that she made a personal appeal to the members of the Congress of Peru to reflect on Chavez who openly defended state terrorism, the denouement of human rights in Peru, and her lack of responsibility and objectivity in coordinating a commission on human rights, judging “this is a terrible time for the present and future message of what would be remembered as the statement on human rights in Perú.”  It was not just for the moment, nor even for the generation, but for the generations not yet numbered, as the mark of genocide and civil war stays with a nation for the length of its history, yet Martha Chavez was convinced that Ollanta Humala was more concerned with his place in Peruvian history than with the plight of the people–even though he was with the people during triumphs and disasters and treated them both the same so to inspire Perú to rise above defeat and to celebrate victories when each came.

Enrique Crousillat López Torres

Cisneros denied Fujimori’s subtle hint that convicted businessman Jose Enrique Crousillat López Torres (3 December 1932 – ) was the instigator of the atrocities, and that Cisneros was an adulteress.  Cisneros rejected Fujimoristas’ claim that Enrique Crousillat was her daughter’s godfather as a way of her protecting the businessman.  Cisneros pinned the source of the lie to the cathedral itself and the lies of its archbishop as Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne (born in Lima, 28 December 1943) was not only a close friend of the Fujimoristas and remains unusually close to the Fujimori family campaigned for Alberto Fujimori with the full weight of the Roman Catholic Church in Perú.  Like the predatory Pope Pius XII, Cipriani Thorne never spoke out against the abuse of mountain poor or the impoverished on the fringes of Lima, Perú.  Cisneros noted that her daughter’s certified baptismal record had Abelardo Oquendo (born in Lima in 1937) as the godfather.  Cisneros could not sue for libel or slander since Fujimori had been granted immunity, and the accusations of Fujimori were straddled by Chavez who filled out the aspersions of the Fujimoris.²¹

Salomón Lerner Febres

Chavez’ lack of objectivity and failure at fairness in dealing with the issues raised by the commission spurred the former president of the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), Salomón Lerner Febres, to declare Chavez unfit for her post on the commission, invoking that Chavez and her Popular Front political party had taken “a stand against human rights and NGOs” that defend human rights and the commission”. Lerner Febres’ twelve volume report acknowledged that 46% of all assassinations were by terrorists, but spoke strongly the people elect to ignore that 54% of all murders and executions were carried out by the military and Perú police.²²   Lerner Febres pointed out, “The congresswoman has not missed the opportunity to speak ill of the work of the commission without knowing in detail the work we do.” Lerner Febres denied that the TRC has misspent money or acted irregularly in the management of its budget, as the Fujimorista Chávez hinted.  Addressing the issue point blank, Lerner Febres objected: “That’s absolutely false, I have worked pro bono for two years on the commission, as she asks to be paid extra wages accrued in Parliament”.²³   The hypocrisy and self-serving sycophant congresswoman Martha Chávez was already legendary.  Chavez vowed that she would “stand firm” against any encroachment by the Commission on what she perceived were inalienable rights to protect the patrimony as defined by the Fujimoristas.²⁴

La Cantuta Massacre protest

By November 6, 2013, protests against Chavez sitting on the Human Rights Commission grew. Few considered her objective, and less considered her impartial.²⁵  The protests numbered in the thousands²⁶ with speakers in San Miguel Plaza noting that her election to the Human Rights commission was incompatible with human rights.²⁷  Some protestors criticized Chávez as a rodent, an act that former anti-corruption prosecutor Ronald Gamarra criticized as unacceptable for any human rights advocate to do as it negated the entire issue of human rights.

Perú Vice President Marisol Espinoza

Congresswoman Martha Chávez continued to claim that she would serve and that the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation Commission had no legitimacy since “90% of the commissioners are Marxist-Leninists”²⁸  In this contention, Alberto Fujimori supported Congresswoman Chávez, but claimed that “Stalinists” opposed her:²⁹ Fujimori’s love of money above all else was seen in his daughter Keiko’s movement of Peru gold to Japan for her father, his chief spy Vladimiro Montesinos’ money laundering of $50 million from drug money that was known by the year 2000, etc.³⁰ reiterating her stand that Fujimori did nothing wrong³¹ with letting Las Colinas Group kill students who were proclaiming and advocating the overthrow of the Fujimori government in favor of Marxism, or forcing sterilization on mountain women.³²   At the same time, Martha Chávez claimed that to deny human rights was tantamount to accepting “abortion, rape of children, trafficking in persons”.³³ Chavez condemned the commission because “99% (sic) of its commissioners were political actors of Marxism³⁴ in the 1960s and 1970s … There is no moral authority, there were no policemen, or patrolmen, or members of the Armed Forces in the (original) commission.”³⁵  Chávez conveniently forgot that the Fujimori blood bath was in the 1990s.  This was brought forward when Vice President Marisol Espinoza said that Chavez “cannot have (show) fairness” in the analysis of the work of the Human Rights commission.³⁶

End Notes