|
30 June A policeman arrives at our office to hand me the copy of a Ministerial
Resolution (M1) that rescinds my residence in the country, giving me 7 days to leave,
alleging that I have infringed my condition as immigrant.
With my lawyers (offered by the Bishops´ Conference and the Vicariate of Iquitos)
we present two legal actions based on the fact that I had never been notified that
there was an investigation under way and never had a right therefore to defend myself.
We submit a HABEAS CORPUS (A) and an “ACCION DE AMPARO”
(= injunction) (B)Judge Alexander receives the Accion de Amparo (
B) and begins his considerationThe lady Judge Dr. Chirinos considers the
Habeas Corpus (A) and after 5 days sentences
in my favour, “ordering the Ministry of the Interior to cease any acts that interfere
with my work, guaranteeing me freedom of movement and the right to stay in Loreto
(our Province) or cross the borders”.
The Ministry appeal the decision. So it (A) goes to the Second Penal
Court here in Iquitos.
After five days we are called to a session in the Court. The Public Prosecutor for the
Ministry makes no appearance. The three judges here our justification for upholding
Judge Chirinos’ decision. The court retires and has 5 days to pass sentence.
Judge Alexander receives the Accion de Amparo (B) and begins his consideration.
9 August: Brother Paul presents his forms for the renewal of his residence permit
(that expires in September) to the Immigration Office in Iquitos together with
the Bishop’s letter that is the normal requirement for renewal. The lady in charge
of the office asks me for a copy of my passport and the date of my last entry
to Peru.
I ask her if this is normal procedure…for example for our 3 Spanish de
La Salle Brothers in the nearby town of Requena. She admits it isn’t.
When I go abck next day(the process sis normally that quick)
I am asked to also present a letter from my religious Superior in Lima.
I do so next day. She then asks me to come
back on 17th August since Lima is taking an interest in the case.
16 August: The State Security Police notify me that they will hand over a copy of
the second Ministerial Resolution (M2) on Wednesday 18 August at 6pm.
17 August: I return to the Immigration office on 17 August at 3pm The lady in charge
is herself surprised that no message has been sent form Lima. She leaves
the office to make a phone call to Lima. After ten minutes she informs me
that the Director General of Migrations says that since my Superior resides
in Lima, it depends on the Lima jurisdiction (of the Ministry) to decide
on my renewal of residence.
I ask if this is the new norm for the whole country and relations between the Church
and the Government. The lady expresses her own confusion and asks me to give them
a few more days. With the lawyers we decide we will wait a few more days and then
possibly place another injunction in the Judiciary given that they are clearly
blocking my right to renew my residence.
One interpretation that our lawyers consider is that the Ministry is waiting for time
to run out before my permit ends (in September) and that if it runs out they can
achieve, by means
of an administrative act, what they can’t achieve legally – to secure my expulsion.
18 August: Judge Alexander, having seen a copy of the second Ministerial
Resolution (M2) issues his decision not to pronounce over the basic issue
since what was the cause of the initial legal action no longer exists given
that the Minister has declared null his first Resolution (M1).
18 August : 6pm : In the State Security office we are given a copy of the second
Ministerial Resolution (M2) that cancels the first one. It states that “everything should
go back to that stage of the process where they notify me of the police investigation.”
In this same interview the policeman asks me to receive notification of a first
interview (restarting a process of investigation). My lawyers state that they will reply
in writing asking that no further actions of investigation be undertaken until
all the legal measure in process are completed.
We learn that today the Public Prosecutor from Lima has been visiting the Palace
of Justice here in Iquitos.
Important note. The date of this second Resolution is 19 July….exactly one month
before we get any news of it. Incidentally, two days after Amnesty International’s
second strongletter to the government was published. Why didn’t the
Ministry inform the Judiciary andus of this second resolution? What was
their interest in hiding it from us and the press? We
were never notified of the publication of this Resolution before the 18 August.
19 August : At 9am our lawyers get a preview, in the Palace of Justice, of the
sentencefrom the First Penal Court on the Habeas Corpus appeal. It appears
they have annulled the Habeas Corpus that we had won in the primary stage
on the argument that the Minister wasn´t notified by the lady Judge Chirinos.
All the evidence shows the opposite. Our team is assessing our next action.
The Court have centred on a detail or “form” and didn’t give opinion on the
basis of the Habeas Corpus which was to ensure Brother Paul his rights.
At 5.30pm Brother Paul receives a phone call from the lady in Immigration
(Iquitos office)asking him to go and collect a copy of an email just sent through
from Lima. The content reveals that Brother Paul’s request for the renewal
of his residence has “been observed” – and the Ministry of the Interior now
asks him to include a new letterfrom his religious superior explaining his
mission in Iquitos and including the Bishop’s
seal over the letter. This is a totally new procedure. In 20 years I have never had to
do this. I asked the lady if this is now the policy for all religious in the country.
She doesn’t know. We’ll complete the paper work in the next two days.
These details show the extent to which the case is being politicized and there are clear
signs of persecution.
Our team is now working on the next legal steps that we shall announce shortly.
|
