That can be done while respecting institutional frameworks
En el Perú de hoy, donde las heridas del fallido golpe de diciembre de 2022 aún no cierran, el partido Juntos por el Perú ha abierto una ventana condicional hacia el indulto de Pedro Castillo, el expresidente que permanece recluido en el penal de Barbadillo. Ernesto Zunini, secretario general del partido, trazó esta semana un camino posible pero estrecho: la clemencia presidencial solo podría ejercerse si Roberto Sánchez gana las elecciones y si los tribunales emiten una sentencia firme, respetando en todo momento los marcos institucionales. Es una declaración que no resuelve nada, pero que revela cuánto sigue dividiendo a este país la figura de Castillo y el significado de la justicia.
- Castillo lleva más de tres años preso en Barbadillo, condenado por intentar disolver el Congreso y perpetrar un golpe que sacudió los cimientos del sistema político peruano.
- La declaración de Zunini encendió el debate: para sus seguidores, es una señal de esperanza; para sus detractores, una amenaza velada a la institucionalidad democrática.
- El equipo legal de Castillo ya presentó formalmente una solicitud de indulto ante el gobierno actual, pero el expediente permanece en espera sin respuesta visible.
- Zunini cuestionó además la solidez jurídica de los cargos contra Castillo, argumentando que acusarlo de rebelión sin armas ni respaldo material resulta procesalmente insostenible.
- Todo depende ahora de dos variables que nadie controla del todo: el resultado electoral y el ritmo de unos tribunales que no muestran señales de acelerar su trabajo.
Ernesto Zunini, secretario general de Juntos por el Perú, abrió esta semana una discusión que muchos en el país seguían con atención contenida. En declaraciones a RPP radio, trazó un camino condicional hacia un posible indulto presidencial para Pedro Castillo, el expresidente recluido en el penal de Barbadillo desde su fallido golpe de Estado en diciembre de 2022.
La propuesta de Zunini no es incondicional ni inmediata. Explicó que un indulto presidencial exige primero la existencia de una sentencia firme, la cual aún no ha sido emitida. Solo entonces, y bajo una eventual administración de Roberto Sánchez, podría ejercerse la clemencia ejecutiva dentro de los marcos legales vigentes. "Esperando una sentencia definitiva y aplicando el indulto presidencial", dijo. "Por ahora no es posible porque no hay sentencia, pero todo apunta a que ocurrirá en algún momento."
Mientras tanto, el equipo jurídico de Castillo, encabezado por el abogado Walter Ayala, ya presentó formalmente una solicitud de indulto ante el gobierno de José María Balcázar. La petición aguarda en el sistema sin respuesta. Las palabras de Zunini sugieren que Juntos por el Perú, de llegar al poder, no descartaría atender ese pedido, siempre que el proceso judicial haya concluido.
Zunini también cuestionó la solidez de los cargos: argumentó que acusar a Castillo de rebelión sin que mediara ningún tipo de armamento resulta jurídicamente endeble, y puso en duda si el proceso de destitución respetó el debido proceso desde el inicio.
La declaración expone una fractura que no ha sanado. Para los seguidores de Castillo, su detención es una persecución política; para sus opositores, una consecuencia necesaria de haber atentado contra el orden democrático. Zunini intenta navegar entre ambas orillas: un indulto, sugiere, puede ser legítimo si se otorga por los canales correctos. Lo que ocurra dependerá del resultado electoral y de si los tribunales emiten sentencia antes de que ese escenario se materialice.
Ernesto Zunini, the general secretary of Juntos por el Perú, opened a door this week that many in Peru have been watching closely. Speaking to RPP radio on Thursday, he laid out a conditional path toward a presidential pardon for Pedro Castillo, the former president now imprisoned in Barbadillo for his failed coup attempt in December 2022. The pardon, Zunini said, could happen if Roberto Sánchez wins the upcoming general elections—but only if the process unfolds within the bounds of institutional law.
The mechanics matter here, and Zunini was careful to spell them out. A presidential pardon, he explained, requires a final court sentence to exist first. Right now, no such final ruling is in place, which means the legal machinery has not yet completed its work. Once it does, and once a new administration takes office, the pardon power could theoretically be exercised. "That can be done while respecting institutional frameworks," Zunini said. "Waiting for a final sentence and applying presidential clemency. For now it's not possible because there is no final sentence, but everything points to it happening at some moment."
Castillo remains locked in Barbadillo, convicted of orchestrating a coup that shocked Peru's political system. His legal team, represented by attorney Walter Ayala, has already submitted a formal request for presidential clemency to the current government under José María Balcázar. The request sits in the system, waiting. Zunini's comments this week suggest that Juntos por el Perú, should it gain power, would not dismiss such a request out of hand—provided the legal process is honored.
But Zunini also took aim at the judicial proceedings themselves. He disputed the charges against Castillo, arguing that the former president was accused of rebellion despite having no weapon, not even a water pistol. The accusation, in Zunini's view, was poorly constructed and failed to meet the standard of proof. He questioned whether the constitutional process for removing Castillo from office was properly followed, suggesting that due process was compromised from the start.
The statement reflects a deeper fracture in Peru's political landscape. Castillo's supporters view his detention as unjust, a weaponization of the courts against a leftist leader. His opponents see his coup attempt as a fundamental threat to democratic order. Zunini's careful language—emphasizing institutional respect while hinting at eventual clemency—tries to thread a needle between these poles. A pardon, he suggests, need not be lawless; it can be granted through proper channels by a future administration that chooses to exercise that power.
What happens next depends on two things: whether Sánchez wins the election, and whether the courts issue a final sentence before then. If both occur, Castillo's path out of Barbadillo may no longer be theoretical. For now, it remains conditional—a possibility that hinges on electoral outcomes and the pace of judicial proceedings that show no sign of accelerating.
Citações Notáveis
That can be done while respecting institutional frameworks. Waiting for a final sentence and applying presidential clemency.— Ernesto Zunini, general secretary of Juntos por el Perú
Pedro Castillo was accused of rebellion despite having no weapon, and the accusation was poorly constructed and failed to meet the standard of proof.— Ernesto Zunini
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
So Zunini is saying a pardon is possible, but only under certain conditions. What are those conditions exactly?
Two main ones. First, there has to be a final court sentence. Right now the case is still moving through the system. Second, Roberto Sánchez has to win the elections. If both things happen, then the pardon becomes legally available to use.
But why does Zunini keep emphasizing that it has to respect institutional frameworks? Isn't a pardon by definition an exercise of power outside normal legal channels?
That's the tension he's trying to resolve. A pardon is discretionary power, yes, but it's still a power that exists within the law. He's saying: we won't just erase the conviction arbitrarily. We'll follow the proper procedures, wait for the final ruling, and then use the pardon authority that the constitution grants to the president.
And what about his criticism of the trial itself? He says Castillo had no weapon, that the charges don't hold up.
He's arguing the conviction is weak on the merits. If you believe the trial was unfair or the evidence insufficient, then a pardon becomes not just mercy but a correction of injustice. That's a different moral claim than simply forgiving a guilty man.
Does Castillo's legal team think this path is realistic?
They've already filed the formal request with the current government, so they're working the system as it exists. Zunini's comments suggest that if the political winds shift, that request might actually get a hearing.
What does this tell us about where Peru's political center actually is right now?
It tells us the question of Castillo's fate is still live, still contested. He's not a closed chapter. A major political party is openly discussing conditions under which he could be freed. That's significant.