When Fujimori was extradited to our country, analysts such as Santiago Pedraglio and Augusto Alvarez Rodrich sought to focus the debate on extradition in what for them is a fundamental point: that the trial of Alberto Fujimori will not be politicized and that the political agenda is not dependent on what happens there.
Yesterday began the trial and the same hypothesis is re-released in the midst of the hubbub fujimontesinista by the "cries of hyena" in hypertension dictator, who is a criminal division overly condescending and could qualify for up to fujimorizada (just remember that Cesar San Martin The president of this room, is the author of the ineffable bill that allowed Fujimori to see his view from the comfort of your bed!). However, this speech could be taken even by well-meaning Pedraglio and a neat sector of the increasingly poor who corresponds press (not so much by its obvious Alvarez Rodrich political position) is a subtle way of telling us that in the case of Fujimori, has no jurisdiction a moral, social and particularly political, but still, when Fujimori's supporters to politicize the event and more are those who have engaged in a smear political struggle using the "Colina Group" of the press, I mean the daily "La Razon" against those who accuse the former dictator.
In fact, this strategy seems to be the politicization that has driven the Fujimontesinismo turning it over, to continue the story of "political persecution" and victimization of the offender Kenya Inamoto. 
It is therefore necessary to ask oneself, to serve as the engine for the debate should focus not only commenting on the considerations that play to justice, but rather to analyze the role that society plays play no dead man can do at this juncture, for example, what is the historical view that should be on the Fujimorismo and what was that time for the country? O What is the view that we should ask ourselves for allowing this brutality?
Perhaps we will now, taking into account some elements that appear on the national scene:
1. Judicial processes and their relationship to history. Without doubt, trials are needed to clarify the truth, but have a center aiming to establish criminal liability and penalties involved. Hannah Arendt refers to these limits in Eichmann in Jerusalem. While prosecutors and officials of the State of Israel tried through the judicial process, to seek an answer to what was the Holocaust. The judges, with discretion, took the matter which was important from a legal point of view: Adolf Eichmann was responsible for the crimes charged against him? This gives us an idea of \u200b\u200bwhere memory is contested ground: public opinion and academic.
2. The battle for memory: Carlos Ivan Degregori reminded us that the trial of Fujimori is a time to "fight this to give our past a sense that prefigures our future, the profile of country we want for future generations ". He cites the battle for the main memory: Was authoritarianism and human rights violations necessary for peace?, Was necessary to introduce market-liberal model as the new religion in our country? Was it for or despite Fujimori? "Fujimori and his authoritarianism ended up being a higher cost to liberal economic reform? Or was it peace with Ecuador product of a good negotiation or a military defeat? According
José Alejandro Godoy, in his blog desdeeltercerpiso.blogspot.com , referring to the battles of memory in the field of human rights:
"In fact, Peru is living a longer process, that social scientists call battle over the memory. Named to the contrast of versions of dictatorships and / or periods of violence, which affect not only what people perceive that occurred during an internal conflict or a period of strong repression, but also have a direct relationship with policies that are used to address the aftermath of the violence and care for victims. In Peru, there are two narratives in dispute: On the one hand, there is a memory saving, which will enhance the role of the government of Alberto Fujimori and the armed forces solely responsible for the defeat of Shining Path, putting emphasis on values as order and security fre nte 
human rights, taking the fundamental rights violations as "methods inevitable" that they had used to finish the conflict. Undoubtedly, the general version Huamán is in this first group. On the other hand, we have a memory for reconciliation, not only refutes the official story given during the nineties, but it turns out to be a more all-encompassing internal armed conflict, seeking to understand the different edges of the violence, the underlying processes in Peruvian society - exclusion, discrimination and racism - that marked much of the dynamics of conflict and a serious questioning of the three governments during which development the process of violence. A saving memory is characterized as manipulative to the point that will back up the agenda for what happened in the years of violence, an issue that also includes temporary stay for most of this public version. Thus, means that the debate between the two reports focused on topics that, while important, diverted attention on key aspects of the relationship established between the TRC what happened during the years of violence and the consolidation of democracy and human rights. Therefore, the discussion on the composition and methodology of the Commission, and the issue of political responsibility, criminal and social actors involved in the conflict were the focus of the discussion, as were the areas in which the official speech advocates wanted defender.Es therefore necessary to refocus the debate on historical memory in Peru. Certainly is necessary to persist in the effort to identify the responsibilities of each of the actors due. However, greater effort should be made to present the final report of the TRC as a document that provided an overview on the functioning of institutions in our country and the most urgent social problems atender.Ello implies that the discussion focuses on to which Peru is assumed as a post-war society - an issue that until today has not been done - and that the State policies vary on the basis of this recognition.
3. collective guilt: I agree with César Hildebrandt on the need to look beyond and ask Fujimori and Montesinos on responsbailidad that various sectors, people and even ourselves in this tragedy it was the nineties. That is, seeing a more complex than a simple transfer of responsibilities to two criminals who, in fact have them, but in which many did their part to make the script of the dictatorship to be fulfilled, whether by act or omission.
