Lawyers for former Peruvian president Ollanta Humala have asked the Second Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice to comply with a Constitutional Tribunal ruling and order his immediate release. Humala remains held at Barbadillo prison on charges of money laundering tied to alleged contributions from construction firm Odebrecht to his 2006 and 2011 electoral campaigns.
Attorneys Wilfredo Pedraza and Edinson Huaman filed a written submission referencing the tribunal’s decision, which declared a habeas corpus petition founded and annulled the entire criminal process against Humala.
Four rulings targeted for annulment
The defense asked the court to nullify four specific resolutions. The first, dated April 16, 2026, had scheduled the start of an appeal hearing for April 30, 2026. The second was the conviction handed down on April 29, 2025, which sentenced Humala to 15 years in prison for alleged money laundering. The third was a citation to trial issued January 7, 2022, and the fourth was a prosecution order dated November 17, 2021.
The defense grounded its request in Article 27 of the Constitutional Procedural Code, which establishes that rulings by constitutional judges take precedence over those of other courts and must be carried out in their own terms. The lawyers also cited Article 139 of the Constitution, which prohibits any authority from overturning final judgments, modifying sentences, or delaying their execution.
On that basis, the defense argued that executing the tribunal’s ruling requires no hearing, evidentiary proceedings, or prior notice to other parties. The submission also asks that Humala’s criminal, judicial, and police records generated from the case be erased, including entries in national police digital registries and the Public Prosecutor’s registry.
Defense calls judiciary response too slow
Speaking to La Republica, attorney Pedraza described the tribunal’s ruling as an act of justice and said it was a shame the judiciary had not acted sooner, noting that Humala had been the only person in the country held in prison for more than 15 months over issues related to political campaign contributions.
Pedraza said the ruling’s value extended beyond Humala’s individual case, arguing that it sets an important precedent requiring judges and prosecutors to interpret criminal laws restrictively rather than broadly. He said the judiciary had unnecessarily prolonged Humala’s detention, particularly given that a prior ruling in the Fujimori case had already made clear the conduct in question was not a crime.
On the possibility of Humala traveling to Brazil or his family returning to Peru, Pedraza said his client had mentioned nothing of the sort and that such decisions belong to the family. He said Humala had expressed no intention of leaving the country, adding that the immediate priority was securing his release and the definitive closure of the case as ordered by the tribunal.
Pedraza noted that the tribunal’s ruling applies only to Humala but said nothing prevents its findings from being extended to others involved in the same case, including that each defendant’s legal team would need to pursue that outcome separately.
Lawyer for Heredia welcomes ruling
Leonardo Massud, the Brazil-based attorney for former first lady Nadine Heredia, welcomed the constitutional decision but said it had come with significant delay. He said the ruling’s recognition that campaign contributions did not constitute a crime, and that those investigated could not have known of any illicit origin, finally brought justice. He added that Heredia was very happy with the decision despite the delay and the harm caused to her and her family.
