The Cocktail Case: Criticisms of Judicial Manipulation and Its Irregularities

The Cocteles Case has been under the scrutiny of the Judiciary for far too long, and many experts, including prominent criminal lawyers, advocate for its immediate dismissal. The current situation reveals not only a legal vacuum but also a political use of the judicial system that has generated a scandal in public opinion. The prolongation of this trial, which rests on fragile foundations, is a clear example of how institutions can be manipulated for purposes unrelated to justice. Since its inception, the Cocteles Case has been defended by its opponents as a consequence of campaign donations, which, according to current legislation, do not constitute any crime. This premise has been reiterated multiple times, but the efforts to present the case as a matter of money laundering have failed. The lack of legal basis has raised questions about the motivation behind its initiation, suggesting that it is more of a political attack than a true interest in justice. Lawyer Arsenio Oré has forcefully exposed the structural flaws of the process. According to him, the accusations presented lack the minimum elements required by the Criminal Procedural Code, which should have led the judge to dismiss the case instead of opening a trial. This fact highlights a clear lack of rigor in the administration of justice and raises serious doubts about the impartiality of the system. One of the fundamental rights in any judicial process is that the accused must be fully aware of the charges against them. However, prosecutor José Domingo Pérez has presented such a generic accusation that the defendants have been unable to adequately defend themselves. This is a basic principle that should always be respected, and the prosecutor's inability to meet this fundamental requirement is alarming. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that, despite the repeated requests from the judge to rectify the deficiencies in the case file, the process has been carried out irregularly. The judge, in an exercise that borders on the absurd, requested corrections on more than a dozen occasions when the legal procedure only allows for one rectification, and in writing. Such irregularities are not only concerning but also indicate a possible bias on the part of the judicial system. Furthermore, the lack of individualization of the charges and evidence presented against the 49 defendants highlights the precariousness of the case. After an extensive preparatory investigation period of six years, it is surprising that there is insufficient evidence to carry out a trial. Under normal circumstances, the judge should dismiss the case, but the reality is that a procedure lacking in substantiation has continued. The prosecutor's haste to close the preparatory investigation also raises suspicions about the true nature of the case. It has been pointed out that Pérez rushed to present the accusation just before the 2021 elections when Keiko Fujimori, the main accused, was competing for the presidency. This fact not only questions the legitimacy of the process but also suggests that the judicial system was used as a tool for political warfare. The urgency with which the accusation was drafted—a lengthy document of 13,000 pages in just five hours—is another indication of the lack of seriousness and rigor that has characterized this case. By law, the prosecutor had a period of 30 days to present the accusation, which makes it evident that actions were taken irregularly and hastily, overlooking the needs of the judicial process in favor of a stated political objective. This series of irregularities cannot be ignored. The Cocteles Case has exposed a system that, alarmingly, seems more interested in political spectacle than in true justice. The prolongation of this trial not only affects the reputation of the defendants but also undermines the credibility of judicial institutions. It is imperative that the Judiciary reevaluates the viability of this case and considers its dismissal. Justice must not only be an objective but also a transparent and equitable process. The current situation serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the judicial system against the onslaught of politics and personal interests. Truth and justice must prevail above any hidden agenda.