The delay in the 'Vacunagate': a case that questions the Peruvian justice

The case of 'Vacunagate' involving former President Martín Vizcarra continues to be a source of controversy in the political and judicial spheres of Peru. Despite the serious corruption accusations weighing on Vizcarra, the delay in resolving this and other cases has generated criticism towards the Judiciary, the Public Prosecutor's Office, and, on this occasion, the Congress of the Republic. One of the investigations that has remained stagnant is the extortion complaint filed by the prosecution against Martín Vizcarra for his secret vaccination during his term as president. Despite the evidence presented suggesting an abuse of power by the former president to obtain vaccines intended for essential personnel, the Congress has shown a concerning slowness in processing this complaint. Since the complaint entered Congress in April 2023, over a year has passed without significant progress in the case. Despite the initial approval of the admissibility of the complaint, the appointment of a congressional rapporteur, and its accumulation with other constitutional complaints, the lack of concrete results has led to criticism of the Legislative's lack of diligence. The resignation of two congressmen designated as delegates for the case, as well as the absence of a figure responsible for producing a final report, demonstrate a lack of interest or bias in the processing of this complaint. It is concerning that, despite the opposition majority in Congress and their critical stance towards Martín Vizcarra, progress has not been made in a case that could reveal acts of corruption. This situation calls into question the credibility and effectiveness of the institutions responsible for dispensing justice in the country. The delay in resolving high-profile corruption cases like 'Vacunagate' not only undermines the public's trust in their authorities but can also set a negative precedent in the fight against impunity and corruption in Peru. The lack of progress in this and other cases involving Martín Vizcarra, such as 'Richard Swing' or the alleged bribes during his tenure as governor of Moquegua, raises questions about political will and transparency in the administration of justice in the country. The slow resolution of these cases contrasts with the urgency and determination with which situations of this magnitude of corruption should be addressed. It is essential that the institutions responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption cases act promptly, impartially, and transparently to ensure accountability and justice in the country. The delay in resolving cases like 'Vacunagate' only serves to undermine trust in the judicial system and perpetuate the impunity of illicit acts. Given the complexity and seriousness of the accusations against Martín Vizcarra, it is imperative that Congress and other competent institutions act with the diligence and seriousness that these cases require. Only through thorough investigation and a timely response can justice prevail and lay the groundwork for a more transparent and effective judicial system in Peru.