Forensic Anthropology in Peru

.

Forensic Anthropology in Peru dates back to the 1990s. The first official forensic anthropologist in Peru—in this case, the first official female forensic anthropologist in Peru—is Licentiate Aidee Chávez Rodríguez from the Institute of Legal Medicine of the Public Ministry. In 1997, when I entered the Institute of Legal Medicine to complete my pre-professional internship in Forensic Anthropology, Licentiate Chávez Rodríguez was still officially the only forensic anthropologist in Peru. Later, in the year 2000, Non-Commissioned Officer and expert witness Danny Humpire became the first forensic anthropologist of the Forensic Anthropology Section in the Department of Forensic Medicine of the National Directorate of Criminalistics. Subsequently, other anthropologists, archaeologists, and odontologists would arrive, mainly at the Institute of Legal Medicine of the Public Ministry, the institution responsible for scientifically supporting the preliminary investigations of prosecutors. Some entered through positions of trust and others, as was my case and already in my capacity as a professional, through public competition.

In the year 2002, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru (CVR) had convened a group of bachelor's degree holders in archaeology, who called themselves the Peruvian Team of Forensic Anthropology (EPAF) and who had participated as expert witnesses in the case of the MRTA terrorist group annihilated by the Chavín de Huántar Command during the rescue of hostages at the Japanese Embassy in Lima. In this context, a group of sixty people, including graduates and students, mainly of Anthropology, at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the National University of San Marcos, took the initiative to form the San Marcos Forensic Anthropology Workshop. This was despite failing to secure the support of the Anthropology Students' Center (CEAN), which at that time was heavily politicized. Precisely, the Forensic Anthropology Workshop emerged as a response to the assertions of certain members of the CVR that Forensic Anthropology did not exist in Peru, and in the face of the expressed intention of Anthropology professors to split the profession into two majors: Social Anthropology and Forensic Anthropology, as they did not want to lose teaching positions.

Fortunately, the initiative coincided with the elections at the Academic Directorate of the School of Anthropology. Upon seeing the enthusiasm and reception that the Workshop aroused, the then-Director of the School, anthropologist José Vegas Pozo, made the happy decision to ingratiate himself with the Forensic Anthropology Workshop. He approved not only its execution but also our written proposal, endorsed with signatures, for the incorporation of Forensic Anthropology as an elective course in the major, and promoted taking the same measure in the Academic School of Archaeology. The Director of the School of Anthropology was re-elected, although they did not fulfill their promise to provide us with all the facilities: classrooms were difficult to obtain, and only once did we have an overhead transparency projector at our disposal.

On that occasion, professionals from the Institute of Legal Medicine of the Public Ministry and the Directorate of Criminalistics of the Ministry of the Interior participated selflessly, including forensic anthropologist Aidee Chávez Rodríguez, forensic anthropologist Danny Humpire Molina, forensic archaeologist Flavio Estrada, forensic odontologist José Vela, and forensic anthropologist Roberto Parra Chinchilla. The idea behind the Forensic Anthropology Workshop was for the students themselves to choose, from among the speakers, the next professor for the Forensic Anthropology course.

When the 2003 academic year began, the Directorate of the Professional Academic School of Anthropology at San Marcos decided, on its own accord and without the corresponding public competition, to assign the responsibility of teaching the Forensic Anthropology course to archaeologist María Inés Barreto, who was one of the assistants in the research group of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

It was after the four grave exhumations conducted by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR)—when the Public Ministry assumed absolute responsibility for investigations into clandestine graves and allegations of extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances dating from the era of the counter-terrorism struggle that took place in Peru between the 1980s and 2000—that Forensic Anthropology experienced a profound transformation. Needless to say, these functions always constitutionally belonged to the Public Ministry, which allowed for the consolidation of the institutionalization of Peruvian Forensic Anthropology. This implied not only the formalization of professional practice and an increase in the number of positions for anthropologists, but also the progressive, albeit slow, equipping of the essential infrastructure for scientific research work nationwide.

However, it must be recognized that the institutionalization of Forensic Anthropology, and of the other forensic sciences, was enriched by the participation of private groups of foreign and national experts in investigations regarding allegations of extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances from the counter-terrorism era between 1980 and 2000.

In the year 2003, a truly advanced document for Peruvian Forensic Anthropology was presented: the Organization and Functions Manual of the "Leonidas Avendaño Ureta" Institute of Legal Medicine. In this document, the competence of the Anthropologist in these functions is defined in Article 118, subsections b, c, e, f, h, i, l, m, n:

"The functions of the anthropologist are:

b) Locate and record anthropometric indicators on skeletal remains.

c) Describe pathology on the skeletal substrate.

e) Examine radiographic plates from an anthropological perspective.

f) Observe and handle samples for anthropological identification studies.

h) Perform somatological examinations on unidentified cadavers (John/Jane Does).

i) Practice anthropometric evaluation on living subjects and unidentified cadavers.

l) Classify common and distinct traits of human groups.

m) Develop epigenetic, morphological, and metric studies of human skeletal remains to establish comparative data for contemporary and ancestral Peruvian populations.

n) Design and implement anthropological examinations and procedures."

It was during the I International Congress of the Public Ministry - Legal Medicine, held in November 2004, that Dr. Luis Bromley Coloma, National Chief of the Institute of Legal Medicine, recognized that only since 2003 had this institution begun to develop on par with other similar and equivalent institutions worldwide, *"progressively becoming a technical, completely scientific institution providing support and advice to prosecutorial investigation."* For the first time, he presented a public balance on the exhumations of so-called clandestine graves, reporting that up to that point, 95 mass graves and 30 niches had been worked on, 102,000 skeletal remains had been studied, and out of 402 individuals, 102 identified human remains had been returned to their families.

During my appointment as a Forensic Anthropologist in the Ayacucho region—the center of investigations into extrajudicial executions, mass grave exhumations, and forced disappearances—and through the mediation of Dr. Humberto Rodríguez Pastor from the Social Sciences Area of CONCYTEC, I presented the same proposal for implementing a Forensic Anthropology course into the curriculum of the Professional School of Anthropology to Dr. Ulpiano Quispe, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the National University of San Huamanga. I held several meetings with his closest professors and students. Upon returning to the capital in Lima months later, I learned that the teaching of the forensic anthropology chair had been approved, but they had appointed a local professor who held multiple specializations, except for forensic anthropology.

Later, on the initiative of Ms. María I. Barreto Romero, the Diploma in Forensic Anthropology and Human Rights was taught at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the National University of San Marcos. Furthermore, since 2007, the Master's Degree in Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology was established at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru through the management of Dr. Sonia Guillén Oneeglio, counting with the participation of experts from the Public Ministry. As reported by journalist Paola Ugaz, this program ultimately ended amidst a scandal of plagiarized theses.

Since the beginning of 2007, a Forensic Anthropology Laboratory has been under construction in Nahuinpuquio, Huamanga-Ayacucho. I was the first to request and justify the need for this facility through the article "Scientific Intelligence in Human Identification Matters" in the Journal of the Public Ministry of Ayacucho in May 2004. This occurred when I was deployed, in my capacity as a professional anthropologist, to the Legal Medical Division of Ayacucho, which led to me being awarded Resolution of the Senior Dean Prosecutor of Ayacucho No. 287-2004-MP-FSDDJ-A, granting Recognition and Commendation for my Institutional Identification and Academic Merits (Ayacucho Fiscal District). The forensic anthropology laboratory is projected to become the most modern in Latin America.

Currently, Peruvian forensic anthropology is going through its most decisive stage: the possibility of consolidating its scientific character in the practice of the profession, or that of atomizing into new and minuscule anthropologies to which others prematurely want to grant autonomy. Likewise, in my capacity as a Forensic Anthropologist in the Lima Centro Region of the Institute of Legal Medicine—deployed to the department of Ayacucho with the Commission for the Exhumation of Clandestine Graves, Extrajudicial Executions, and Enforced Disappearances (2004)—I was very surprised to observe that, from the investigations carried out by the experts of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to those led by the Specialized Forensic Team of the Public Prosecutor's Office, the reconstruction of the original position of the human remains before being exhumed from clandestine graves is not performed. Furthermore, methods and techniques that a group of foreign forensic experts have internationalized are applied; these were implemented based on the anthropological characteristics of urban American and European populations, and the finding of clothing is not validated within the identification process. In Peru, for instance, the consequences of using parameters and ranges from American and European populations for the identification of Andean individuals have been highly regrettable, given that several sessions for the presentation of expert reports ended with the rejection, by the victims' own relatives, of the human remains supposedly identified, as occurred in Sancaypata and Cayara. 

In the document Practical Guide for the Recovery and Analysis of Human Remains (2017), it is acknowledged that out of the estimated 70,000 to 100,000 victims by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, only 2,125 individuals were identified, and they were barely able to return the remains to 1,989 families.

Evidently, the final word will belong to the new generation of young Peruvian forensic anthropologists. They must decide whether they will settle for accumulating diplomas in Forensic Anthropology and applying what others have researched, or—what is more intelligent and honest—whether they will specialize in each of the broad and fascinating topics that comprise Forensic Anthropology and dedicate themselves to publishing what they themselves have rigorously and faithfully researched.

I am the anthropologist Enrique F. Sarmiento, one of the pioneers of forensic anthropology in Peru, and I invite you to write to me; perhaps we can do something more for forensic anthropology in Peru.

.

Fake associations of forensic anthropologists in Peru

.

The justice system and the academic sphere are currently facing a silent but devastating threat: the alarming emergence of individuals who, under the guise of private associations of forensic anthropologists or in a personal capacity, act as syndicates with ideological and criminal purposes against the Peruvian State. They offer specialized, high-level expert witness services and training without possessing the scientific, ethical, or legal backing required by the Peruvian legal system.

The Proliferation of "Super-Experts" and Academic Fraud in Anonymity

The informal and illegal market of forensic science has shaped two recurring criminal modalities.

On one hand, there is the appearance of individuals who lack a professional degree in anthropology or the mandatory professional registration and active status, yet style themselves as "super-experts". They claim to be capable of issuing expert reports in any specialty—ranging from ballistics and crime scenes to physical anthropology—flagrantly violating the exclusive scientific competencies of each discipline.

On the other hand, private institutions and associations are proliferating, offering diploma courses and specialization training in forensic anthropology while keeping the names of their instructors strictly anonymous until enrollment. The reason for this concealment is evident: those teaching the classes are not professional anthropologists, lack scientific production and forensic experience, or are absolute unknowns in the academic community. This type of pseudo-training not only defrauds students but also introduces erroneous concepts and bad practices that irreversibly damage forensic education in the country.

Criminal Anthropologist Experts and Ties to Terrorism

The problem worsens exponentially with allegations that some of these groups and networks are composed of specialists with police records. Some even possess a history of arrest warrants arising from their involvement in illicit activities during the period of the fight against terrorism. These individuals have allegedly played a crucial role in accusations against members of the armed forces for extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances.

In effect, the participation of these specialists faces severe questioning due to an alarming and suspicious scientific and technical deficiency, as well as elementary methodological errors in the identification, recovery, and analysis of human remains. The lack of an ethical filter and rigorous oversight allows these elements to infiltrate not only official expert practice but also private or defense counsel work. Operating collectively as syndicates, they present themselves as qualified interlocutors before the authorities, when in reality they only seek to continue their ideological project against the Peruvian State and their highly lucrative activities in human rights issues.

Currently, the situation reaches scandalous proportions when analyzing the performance of certain official experts. In their capacity as public servants in high-profile court cases, they face serious public allegations of generic fraud, abuse of authority, usurpation of functions, and even the presentation of forged training certificates.

Likewise, there is open functional misconduct and a lack of ethics: State servants acting as defense experts or sponsoring associations against the very public institutions for which they provide services, or exploiting their access to official information to favor private interests. This conduct not only violates elementary ethical principles but directly breaches explicit legal prohibitions regarding dual salary perception, conflicts of interest, and post-employment restrictions within the Peruvian public administration.

The Peruvian Legal Framework: Explicit Violations of Current Regulations

The actions of these fake associations and infringing experts directly clash with constitutional norms, special laws, and institutional codes that regulate professional practice in Peru:

1. The Illegal Exercise of a Profession and the Mandatory Professional Registration

In Peru, a forensic anthropologist expert is strictly required to hold a professional degree as an anthropologist, and to be registered and active within the Professional College of Anthropologists of Peru. Those who perform expert functions or teach forensic coursework without meeting these requirements commit offenses criminalized under the Penal Code.

Article 363 of the Peruvian Penal Code textually establishes:

"He who practices a profession without meeting the required legal conditions shall be punished with a restriction of liberty of no less than two and no more than four years".

Furthermore, Article 273 of the 2004 Criminal Procedure Code (CPP) is conclusive regarding the conditions an expert must meet:

"The expert must possess a professional degree in the matter and be duly registered in their professional college, unless the science, technique, or art is not regulated or there are no professionals available in the locality".

In the case of graduates in social anthropology, they should only be authorized to conduct socio-cultural expert assessments. Given that anthropology is a fully regulated profession in the country, the use of fake degrees or the simulation of competencies constitutes a clear criminal violation.

2. Direct Violation of Law N° 31564 (Law for the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest)

The actions of public servants who participate as defense experts against the State itself or who incur conflicts of interest are severely sanctioned.

Law N° 31564—*the Law regulating obligations and restrictions applicable to public servants in order to prevent conflicts of interest*—and its respective regulations explicitly prohibit personnel serving the state apparatus from intervening in matters where the institution they belong to is a procedural party or holds opposing interests. Acting as a defense expert against one's own institution violates the principle of probity outlined in Article 7 of Law N° 27815 (Law of the Code of Ethics of the Public Function), which mandates that public servants must act with rectitude and honesty, striving to satisfy the general interest and rejecting any personal profit or advantage.

3. Technical Deficiency vs. Rules of Scientific Admissibility

The expert reports issued by these "super-experts" or false specialists lack valid probative value and are routinely dismissed during the intermediate control stages of criminal proceedings due to their evident lack of reliability.

Article 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that an expert report must mandatorily contain:

"The description of the situation or state of facts, whether person or thing, upon which the expert assessment was made; the detailed exposition of what was practiced and its result; and the conclusions reached in accordance with the principles of their science, technique, or art".

When an expert acts with "high scientific deficiency," fakes certifications, or lacks the appropriate training to validate the international methods and techniques they use within the Peruvian population, they violate the guarantees of due process. This exposes judicial operators to grave judicial errors and revictimizes those affected.

Conclusion

Forensic anthropology in Peru cannot become a playing field for front associations with ideological and criminal aims against the Peruvian State, academic frauds, or sanctioned professionals with conflicts of interest who commercialize justice.

The oversight institutions of the justice system have an imperative obligation to supervise and rigorously apply the criminal and administrative sanctions demanded by Peruvian laws. Defending the rigor of forensic science is, ultimately, defending truth, the rights of the population, and the memory of the victims.

.

El Museo de la Memoria Colectiva de los Derechos Humanos en el Perú

El día de hoy, el Presidente de la República, Dr. Alan García Pérez, asistió al inicio de la construcción del Museo de la Memoria Colectiva de los Derechos Humanos en el Perú, ubicado en el emblemático distrito de Miraflores, y el cual ha generado tantas polémicas desde su propuesta en los diversos sectores de la sociedad nacional. Como se recordarà la confrontación surgió a partir del ofrecimiento de la primera ministra alemana Angela Merkel de financiar la construcciòn del Museo de la Memoria con dos millones de dòlares. Casi de inmediato, el entonces Ministro de Defensa, Antero Flores Araoz, declaró con la ligereza del político que busca agitar a las masas que en un país pobre como el Perú, un museo no podía ser una prioridad. Entonces, el escritor Mario Vargas Llosa, Premio Nobel de Literatura 2010, le replicó en un demoledor y brillante artículo titulado El Perú no Necesita Museos, publicado en el diario El Paìs de España, el 8 de marzo de 2009, preguntándose en voz alta : ¿qué puede inducir a un hombre que no es tonto a decir tonterías? y donde el mismo se responde : "Dos cosas, profundamente arraigadas en la clase política peruana y latinoamericana: la intolerancia y la incultura". Además añadió : "Los peruanos necesitamos un Museo de la Memoria para combatir esas actitudes intolerantes, ciegas y obtusas que desatan la violencia política.. Los museos son tan necesarios para los países como las escuelas y los hospitales... Ellos también curan, no los cuerpos, pero sí las mentes".



Pero resulta que ya existe un Museo de la Memoria en Ayacucho, el departamento del Perú, donde Sendero Luminoso inició sus acciones armadas, y no sólo eso, sino un importante número de lugares, monumentos y actividades permanentes conmemorativas de la catástrofe social que vivió nuestro país hasta la década de los noventa. Además, está la imponente construcciòn artìstica El Ojo que Llora en el Campo de Marte de Lima, el Centro de Documentación de la Memoria Colectiva de la Defensoría del Pueblo, a dos cuadras de la Plaza de Armas, la sala permanente e itinerante de Yuyanapaq ( Para recordar ) de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación, nada menos que en el Museo de la Nación, asimismo, diversas universidades nacionales y privadas conjuntamente con una amplia red de organizaciones no gubernamentales de derechos humanos, continuamente convocan a maestrías, diplomados, seminarios, talleres y cursillos especializados en los mencionados temas, y cuyos profesionales y egresados no sólo han logrado acceder mayoritariamente al sistema de justicia nacional, principalmente el Poder Judicial, el Ministerio Público y la Defensoría del Pueblo, sino incluso al mismísimo Ministerio de Defensa y se han dado el lujo de catequizar en temas de intervención en zonas de emergencia y derechos humanos a la cùpula castrense en el Centro de Altos Estudios Nacionales ( CAEN ). Esto último, sumamente desconcertante pues en los momentos de mayor enfrentamiento público, las fuerzas armadas los invitaban a sus reuniones académicas a que les dictaran conferencias y seminarios, gesto que nunca extendieron a profesionales calificados que los asesoraban gratuitamente y que hasta les ofrecieron representarlos ad-honorem en sus casos.

En realidad, con el Museo de la Memoria se está inmortalizando imágenes de rostros y casos que apenas empiezan a investigarse y conocerse. La verdad y la justicia poco parece importar ahora, las revanchas personales y los millones de dólares es en el fondo esa sabiduría que diferencia lo feo de lo bello, lo inteligente de lo estúpido, lo bueno de lo malo y lo tolerable de lo intolerable. Lo descubrí personalmente cuando fui destacado el año 2004 al departamento de Ayacucho para investigar las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, las torturas, las violaciones, las desapariciones y las fosas denominadas clandestinas, y muy desconcertado pude observar que no se contaba con infraestructura y recursos para realizar estas labores. Más sorprendido, aún, cuando verifico que nadie había dicho nada al respecto y cuando mi proyecto de construir un Laboratorio de Antropología Forense y equiparlo adecuadamente, recibió la resistencia insólita del director de la sede de Medicina Legal en Ayacucho de esa época, el médico Luis Castillejo Melgarejo y de mis colegas forenses. Al final, y a pesar de todo, mi propuesta del Laboratorio de Antropología Forense en Ayacucho, consiguió el financiamiento del gobierno sueco, que el Fiscal Decano de ese entonces me aseguró ascendía a tres millones de dólares y aunque demoró su construcción, hoy ya es una realidad, aunque sea en el alejado poblado de Ñahuinpuquio.

El Perú no Necesita Museos, Mario Vargas Llosa


http://www.elpais.com/articulo/opinion/Peru/necesita/museos/elpepiopi/20090308elpepiopi_13/Tes

El Decreto Legislativo 1097

En el Perú, un país de personalidades amantes de lo autoritario y fàcil, hace poco se propuso una nueva modalidad para resolver la situación de estancamiento de los procesos judiciales a los miembros de las fuerzas armadas y policiales, acusados por delitos de lesa humanidad: el Decreto Legislativo Nro. 1097.

Como sabemos, un Decreto Legislativo es la facultad que delega el Congreso de la República al Poder Ejecutivo para dictar determinadas leyes. Asimismo, según la Constitución Política del Perù, el Poder Ejecutivo està conformado por el Presidente de la República y el Consejo de Ministros. En tal sentido, la iniciativa del Decreto Legislativo Nro. 1097, provino del Ministerio de Defensa, hasta entonces a cargo del Ingeniero Rafael Rey Rey.

De inmediato el Decreto Legislativo Nro. 1097, fue aprobado por el Dr. Alan Garcìa Pèrez, Presidente de la República, y publicado en el Diario El Peruano el 1ero de setiembre del presente, desatando una serie de reacciones desde la renuncia irrevocable al cargo de Presidente del Museo de la Memoria Colectiva de los Derechos Humanos en el Perù, el escritor Mario Vargas Llosa, hoy Premio Nobel de Literatura, hasta la encarnizada polèmica entre el ministro de justicia y el de defensa, sobre los tèrminos de la justificaciòn de la ley, que concluyò con advertencias pùblicas del Dr. Vìctor Garcìa Toma, Ministro de Justicia, asegurando renunciar en caso que la ley incluyera la justificaciòn del Ministerio de Defensa, en vez de la suya.

Al final, y a pesar que la ley aparentemente comprendiò los tèrminos del Ministerio de Justicia, tuvo que ser derogada a los pocos dìas, por el propio Presidente de la Repùblica.

Al respecto, el Decreto Legislativo 1097, segùn se publicò tenìa como objetivo: "establecer un marco regulatorio uniforme respecto de los delitos que implican violaciòn de derechos humanos" ( art. 1 ), para lo cual proponìa adelantar la vigencia del Nuevo Código Procesal Penal. En tal sentido, el Poder Judicial, el Ministerio Público, las organizaciones no gubernamentales de derechos humanos y los abogados de los familiares de los desaparecidos y víctimas de la violencia política durante las décadas pasadas en el Perù, aseguran que la demora en los procesos judiciales a los miembros de las fuerzas armadas y policiales, se debe a que el Ministerio de Defensa no les remite la información y documentación requerida sobre el personal destacado a las zonas de emergencia durante la lucha contra la subversión. Sin embargo, esta afirmación es una verdad a medias.

En efecto, otro de los motivos por los cuales los procesos judiciales por delitos de lesa humanidad en el Perù han excedido los plazos legales fue porque los peritos no se ratifican en sus dictàmenes. Es màs, muchos peritos ni siquiera asistieron a los tribunales a ratificar sus dictámenes. Asimismo, en su oportunidad, se denunció que durante la gestiòn del Dr. Alejandro Toledo no sólo se llegó al extremo de allanarse a la Corte de San Josè y de enviar como expediente el informe final de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación, otorgándole un carácter vinculante que nunca se estipuló sino, por último, el encargado de la defensa fue un abogado especializado en Derecho Comercial.

Por este motivo, persuadido el presente gobierno de las graves y sospechosas irregularidades de la Defensa del Estado en las acusaciones por delitos de lesa humanidad y cuando en el Ministerio de Defensa se encontraba el Dr. Alan Wagner Tizòn y como Procurador Antiterrorismo el Dr. Guillermo Cabala Grossman ambos anunciaron por medios televisivos la conformación de un verdadera defensa del Estado a cargo de un equipo especializado integrado por abogados expertos en derecho penal de primer nivel y de profesionales forenses que fueran a la Corte de San José para demostrar las deficiencias científicas y técnicas de las acusaciones. Sin embargo, repentinamente y para sorpresa de todos renunció el Procurador Antiterrorismo Guillermo Cabala, denunciando falta de apoyo y nunca màs se volviò a hablar del asunto.