During the hearing in which the verdict of the judiciary was published, Pedro Castillo turned against the judges and explained that his conviction was due to allegations other than those formulated at the beginning of the judicial process. As La República reported, the former president said in court: “His sentence refers to a different case. Peru knows what is happening,” stressing that the crimes of rebellion and abuse of office have not been proven against him. In this context, the Peruvian Congress ruled out imposing additional political sanctions against Castillo and confirmed in the court decision a prison sentence of eleven years, five months and fifteen days for the crime of conspiracy, excluding the charges of coup d’etat and abuse of office.
According to Peruvian media, Congress debated the possibility of politically sanctioning Castillo with a 10-year disqualification, but the proposal did not receive enough votes to be successful. This way, Castillo will not face political constraints beyond the direct impact of the court ruling. In parallel with the legislative session, the judiciary issued a final decision after evaluating the events of December 7, 2022, when the former president announced on television the dissolution of Congress and the creation of what he called an “exceptional government,” while calling for the drafting of a new constitution.
The verdict, announced in a public hearing and reviewed by La República, said that the judges considered the crime of conspiracy proven and based their decision on the sequence of acts promoted by Castillo on the day of the events. However, the judges ruled out that it was a coup because the former president neither received the support of the armed forces nor brought about the actual collapse of the institutional order necessary for the legal form of this crime. The court concluded that the attempt was a conspiracy because the circumstances did not lead to an armed insurrection or military involvement, elements considered essential for the classification of a rebellion under current legislation in Peru.
According to La República’s reporting, prosecutors initially sought a 34-year prison sentence, accusing Castillo of rebellion, abuse of power and conspiracy. However, the court found only sufficient evidence for a conspiracy conviction and excluded the most serious charges related to an attempt to change the constitutional order through force or military assistance. In addition to a prison sentence, the sentence imposed by the judge also stipulates a two-year ban from holding public office, which makes Castillo’s participation in political life a condition after serving his sentence.
During the session, Castillo’s defense team questioned the consistency of the trial and the validity of the verdict, La República explained. The lawyers stated that the verdict was ultimately based on alternative facts than those originally presented by the State Department in its accusation. They insisted that there had been no effective institutional change and sought to point out flaws in the case presented against them. This defense was not accepted by the court, which upheld the verdict that focused on the conspiracy in the attempt to dissolve Parliament.
The Republic explained that, in the absence of sufficient consensus for a political disqualification, the decision adopted in Congress excludes the possibility of imposing any additional limitation on Castillo’s political rights, beyond that already established through judicial means. The only thing that threatens the former president is the inability to hold public office as long as the disqualification enshrined in the ruling continues.
Castillo has been in prison since December 2022, when he was arrested after being removed from the presidency shortly after his statement calling for the dissolution of Congress. As La República reported, the verdict published by the judiciary emphasized that the conditions for a crime of rebellion were not met, highlighting the absence of an armed movement and the absence of collusion with military commanders, circumstances that, according to Peruvian jurisprudence, are essential for the classification of this behavior.
La República’s reporting made it clear that the Castillo case continues to have strong repercussions both inside and outside the country. Procedural and legislative developments have exacerbated divisions between political actors and highlighted the institutional difficulties in dealing with a political crisis of the magnitude resulting from the removal of a head of state. Various sectors see the court result and the congressional response as a reflection of the complex Peruvian situation as well as the legal limits to combat maneuvers seen as attempts to destabilize.
The sequence of events has deepened discrepancies between powers and exposed deficiencies in the system’s ability to manage serious political conflicts. According to La República, Castillo’s trial, which ended with a conviction for conspiracy, highlights the delicate institutional situation and the uncertainties surrounding the country’s stability and ability to govern.