Política · ArchivoLiberado por el máximo tribunal de Perú, Humala denuncia a los «sicarios del sistema de justicia»Escrito 7 de septiembre de 2026 a las 21:22 UTCVerTranscripción0:00Former Peruvian President Ollanta Humala0:02is free tonight after the Constitutional0:04Court overturned his 15-year money0:06laundering conviction. Humala, who led0:09Peru from 2011 to 2016, walked out of0:12prison and directly into a confrontation0:14with [music] the justice system that had0:15sentenced him, calling its agents "hit0:17men of the justice system who0:19regularized an illegal situation." At0:21the center, [music]0:22a conviction that a lower court had0:23handed down rooted in allegations that0:26his presidential campaigns received0:27illicit funding [music] from two foreign0:29sources. Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and0:31Brazil's Odebrecht construction giant.0:33[music] Today, the country's top0:35constitutional authority erased that0:36conviction, though its legal reasoning0:38is still not [music] public.0:46Seconds after his release, [music]0:47Humala denied everything. He went0:50further, claiming the prosecution was0:52not about evidence, but about ideology.0:53[music]0:54That was not enough. They needed to0:56persecute us for our government's0:57management, for our political ideology.1:00The practical consequence is immediate.1:02Humala [music] is free, but the legal1:04question is not settled. The ruling1:06overturns the conviction. It does not1:08necessarily foreclose a retrial, and1:10neither the court nor prosecutors have1:12indicated what [music] comes next. And1:14because Humala's conviction was part of1:16a wave of anti-corruption prosecutions1:18that have ensnared [music] nearly every1:19living former Peruvian head of state, if1:21the Constitutional Court found a defect1:23in how that case was built, the1:25implications [music] could reach other1:26convictions rooted in the same Odebrecht1:28investigation.1:30What the court has not provided, and1:32what Humala, [music]1:32for all his declarations, cannot answer,1:35is whether the ruling was a correction1:36of a specific legal error in [music] one1:38case, or a repudiation of the1:40anti-corruption apparatus itself. That1:42distinction will determine whether1:44Humala is the first of many [music]1:45former presidents to walk free, or an1:47isolated beneficiary of a court doing1:49exactly what courts are supposed to do.Leer el artículoCronología de la historiaHeyDexEl vídeo breve ↗
