Executive Summary: A Legal Deadlock
In a definitive ruling that reinforces the current legal status of the figures involved in the December 7, 2022, political crisis in Peru, the Constitutional Court (TC) has declared the habeas corpus appeals filed by former President Pedro Castillo and his former Minister of the Interior, Willy Huerta, as "improcedente" (inadmissible).
Both individuals are currently serving prison sentences of 11 years, 5 months, and 15 days following the failed coup d’état that plunged the nation into political turmoil. The legal teams for both defendants had sought to annul their respective convictions and procedural developments, arguing that their constitutional rights had been violated during the judicial process. However, the Tribunal’s decision clarifies that because both men have already been convicted in a criminal court, their appeals via habeas corpus are not the appropriate legal vehicle for relief at this stage of the litigation.
Chronology of the Legal Proceedings
To understand the gravity of the Tribunal’s latest decision, it is essential to trace the procedural history that led to these filings.
- December 7, 2022: Pedro Castillo attempts to dissolve Congress and reorganize the Judiciary, leading to his immediate impeachment and subsequent arrest.
- March 24, 2023: The Public Prosecutor’s Office formalizes the preparatory investigation against Willy Huerta for the crimes of rebellion and, alternatively, conspiracy to commit rebellion.
- December 15, 2023: Prosecutors formally request a 25-year prison sentence for Huerta.
- September 16, 2025: The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court issues a resolution to formally link the charges of conspiracy and rebellion against Castillo, a move his defense vehemently contested.
- November 12, 2024: The court issues an "auto de enjuiciamiento," authorizing the start of the oral trial against Huerta.
- August 2026: The Constitutional Court delivers its final verdict, rejecting the latest round of habeas corpus petitions.
The Defense’s Arguments: Alleged Procedural Irregularities
Pedro Castillo’s Legal Strategy
The defense team for the former president centered its argument on the September 16, 2025, resolution from the Supreme Court’s Special Criminal Chamber. They challenged the decision to legally disassociate and then combine the crimes of conspiracy and rebellion.
Specifically, the defense argued that the presiding judges, Norma Carbajal and José Neyra, acted outside the scope of their authority by attempting to apply "concurso real" (a real concurrence of crimes) to aggregate the sentences for both offenses. The defense cited Article 374, Section 1 of the New Criminal Procedure Code and Article 139, Section 2 of the Constitution, arguing that this judicial action violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and specific sentencing constraints. They requested that these judges be barred from further involvement in the case and that the former president be immediately released.
Willy Huerta’s Legal Strategy
Willy Huerta’s legal team pursued a more comprehensive invalidation strategy. They sought the nullification of:
- The March 2023 formalization of the preparatory investigation.
- The December 2023 accusatory request seeking a 25-year term.
- The November 2024 order that officially triggered the oral trial.
Huerta’s defense argued that the cumulative effect of these judicial acts violated his fundamental rights to personal liberty, the due motivation of judicial resolutions, the right to defense, and the principle of procedural congruence. They contended that the entire prosecutorial framework was flawed from its inception and required a complete restart in accordance with constitutional standards.
The Constitutional Court’s Determination: Why the Appeals Failed
The Tribunal’s rejection was based on a fundamental shift in the procedural status of the defendants. The judges noted that when the habeas corpus motions were initially filed, the petitioners were still considered "suspects" or "accused persons" in the preparatory phase. However, by the time the Tribunal reached its final decision, both men had already been convicted.
The Principle of "Firmeza" (Finality)
The Tribunal emphasized that the current incarceration of Castillo and Huerta is the result of a sentence handed down by a criminal court. Any challenges to this sentencing must go through the established appeals process, specifically the appeals currently pending before the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court.
In their written opinion, the Constitutional Court stated:
"The restriction of the right to personal liberty of the favored parties is now concretized in the aforementioned sentence. This sentence, in turn, may be subject to a new constitutional process, provided that it meets the strict requirement of ‘firmeza’ [finality/exhaustion of all ordinary remedies]."
By labeling the appeals "improcedente," the Court has signaled that it will not act as a shortcut for the judicial system. It requires that all ordinary legal avenues be fully exhausted before the Constitutional Court intervenes in a criminal conviction.
Broader Implications for the Peruvian Judiciary
The Independence of Judicial Processes
The decision of the Constitutional Court serves as a significant reaffirmation of the autonomy of the Supreme Court’s Special Criminal Chamber. By refusing to intervene, the TC has effectively signaled that it will not undermine the trial court’s handling of the high-profile coup case. This preserves the integrity of the ongoing appeals process within the judiciary.
The Limits of Habeas Corpus
Legal experts have long debated the boundaries of the habeas corpus mechanism in Peru. Critics of the defense’s strategy argue that the use of habeas corpus to challenge ongoing procedural acts—such as the formalization of an investigation—is a tactical attempt to delay the trial process ("litigio abusivo"). The TC’s ruling sets a clear precedent: once a conviction is reached, the habeas corpus must shift its focus toward the final judgment rather than the preliminary procedural steps.
Political Stability and Legal Precedent
For the administration of justice in Peru, this ruling provides a sense of finality to the post-coup legal landscape. By clarifying that the defendants must exhaust the appellate route within the Supreme Court, the Tribunal ensures that the legal battle remains within the specialized criminal jurisdiction. This prevents the "politicization" of the legal debate from jumping prematurely into the constitutional arena, which could have led to conflicting rulings between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.
Conclusion: The Path Ahead
As it stands, Pedro Castillo and Willy Huerta remain incarcerated. Their legal paths are now clearly defined: they must await the verdict of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding their appeals against the conviction.
If the Supreme Court upholds the current sentence, the defendants would then be in a position to potentially file a new habeas corpus petition that specifically targets the finality of that appellate decision. However, as the Constitutional Court has made clear, there is no room for bypassing the standard hierarchy of the Peruvian legal system. This ruling stands as a testament to the Court’s commitment to procedural rigor, effectively closing the door on attempts to invalidate the case through preliminary procedural grievances.
The nation continues to watch these developments closely, as the resolution of these cases is not merely a matter of individual liberty, but a foundational test for the resilience of Peru’s democratic and judicial institutions in the wake of the 2022 constitutional crisis.
