Via Google translation (emphasis is by me):

Article 71 .- Rights of the accused

1. The accused may defend himself or through his counsel, the rights that the Constitution and laws granted since the beginning of the first steps in the investigation until the completion of the process.

2. Judges, Prosecutors and the National Police should be made known to the accused immediately and comprehensively, it is entitled to:

a) To know the charges against him and in case of detention, to express it the cause or reason for its action, delivering the warrant turned against them, where appropriate;

b) Designate the person or institution you should contact his arrest and that such disclosure is made immediately;

c) To be assisted from the initial acts of investigation by a lawyer;

d) To refrain from declaring, and if you agree to do so to his counsel is present in its statement and in all proceedings in which their presence is required;

e) not use coercive means against, threatening or contrary to their dignity, nor to be subjected to techniques or methods that induce or alter the free will or suffer a restriction is not authorized or permitted by law, and

f) Be examined by a medical examiner or alternatively by another health professional, where the state of health so requires.

3. The fulfillment of the requirements in the preceding paragraphs on record should be signed by the accused and the appropriate authority. If the accused refuses to sign the record shall indicate the abstention, and shall indicate the reason if we stated. When the refusal occurs in the first steps in the investigation, after intervention by the Prosecutor shall record such fact in the minutes.

4. If the accused believes that during the preliminary or preparatory research has not complied with these provisions, or that their rights are not respected, or is the subject of restrictive measures undue rights or illegal requirements, you can go on the way custody to the Justice of the preliminary investigation to rectify the omission or dictate corrective measures or protection that apply. The application of the accused will be solved immediately, after finding the facts and conducting a hearing with the participation of the parties.

There's also specific rights for defense counsel that address, among other things, the preliminary statement of the defendant:

Article 84 .- Rights of the defense attorney defense attorney has all the rights which the law gives to the exercise of their profession, especially the following:

....4. Participate in all proceedings, except to the testimony given during the investigation stage by the defendant who does not defend.
(I think this means the defense attorney doesn't have a right to be present if the defendant waives his presence, but I'm not sure.)

Article 86 Time and nature of the statement .-

1. In the course of the proceedings at all stages and in accordance with the provisions of this Code, the accused has the right to testify and larger, in order to pursue his defense and respond to the charges against him. Come reporting extensions if they are relevant and not appear only as a dilatory or malicious proceedings.

2. During the preliminary investigation the accused, subject it to the police with the provisions of this Code, will testify before the Prosecutor, with the necessary assistance of his counsel, at his orders or when the defendant's request.

3. During the trial the statement will be received at the time and manner provided for such act.

Article 87 .- Getting Started

1. Before the declaration of the accused, he shall detail the complaint made to the elements of proof and evidence, and criminal provisions that are deemed applicable. Similarly proceed when it comes to its extensions charges or the presence of new elements of proof or evidence. Governing the numeral 2) of Article 71.

2. Also, be warned that have the right to refrain from testifying and that decision may not be used against him. He was also instructed to have the right to the presence of counsel, and if you can not, appoint a public defender appointed. If the new attorney joins defense, the accused has the right to consult with him before starting the diligence and, where appropriate, to request the postponement of it. (This seems to me to be the violation that will be in the habeas petition. They gave Joran a public defender, he said he wanted private counsel, they sent another lawyer instead of continuing the process until Maximo Altez could be present.)

3. The accused will also be informed that you can request the performance of investigative or trial, to make the clarification that it considers appropriate in the diligence, and to make his statement during the preliminary investigation stage.

4. Only the defendant may urge to respond with clarity and precision the questions put to him. The judge or the prosecutor during the preliminary investigation, may make him see the legal benefits that cooperation can be obtained if the early clarification of the criminal acts.

Article 88 .- Development of the declaration

....4. During interrogation the questions are clear and precise, no questions may be submitted ambiguous, misleading or suggestive. During the due diligence may not coerced in any way the defendant, or induce or to testify against her will and no charges or reprimands will make efforts to obtain his confession.

.... 6. If the duration of the event will notice signs of fatigue or lack of serenity in the accused, the statement will be suspended until they disappear.

7. Preparatory Research for the record containing the statement of the accused reproduce, as faithfully as possible what happens in the proceedings. The accused is entitled to dictate answers. Diligence in this phase will end with the reading and signature or, where appropriate, digital printing, the act by all involved. If the accused refuses to testify, in whole or in part, shall be recorded in the minutes. If you refuse to sign it shall indicate the reason.

As to insanity, the Penal Code Article 20 provides:

Article 20 .- insanity

It is exempt from criminal liability:

1. The mental disorder which, severe disturbance of consciousness or suffer alterations in perception, which severely affects their concept of reality, does not have the power to understand the nature of his act or criminal act to be determined according to this understanding;

Article 21 .- Responsibility restricted In the cases of Article 20, if any one of the requirements to remove completely the responsibility (is not met), the court may reduce the penalty to prudently limits below the legal minimum.

As to the process, the criminal procedure code says:

Article 75 .- insanity of the accused

1. When there are serious reasons for considering the state of insanity of the accused at the time of the facts, the judge hearing the preliminary investigation or the criminal judge, college or a one, depending on the status of the case, will, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, practice of examination by a specialized expert.

2. Received an expert report, after hearing, involving the parties and the expert if the court finds a prima facie ground for estimating the state of insanity of the accused, will issue the relevant resolution urging the initiation of the security procedure in accordance with this Code.

Article 76 .- occurring mental abnormality

1. If after the crime was committed serious mental disorder befalls the accused, the Judge of the Research School or the criminal judge, college or a one, order, ex officio or at the request of a party, an examination by a specialized expert. Evacuated to the opinion, date and time will be brought to the realization of the hearing, with citation of the parties and experts.

2. If the analysis of the proceedings, the court noted that the defendant presents a serious mental disorder that prevents him from continuing with the case, the process is adjourned until treatment of the disease makes it possible to restart it. If necessary, order placement in a specialized hospital.

3. The suspension of the process prevent the statement of the accused or the trial, depending on when an order, without prejudice to proceed with the investigation of the act or continue the cause for the codefendants.

It seems it's not just enough for the defendant to know the difference between right and wrong in Peru. It also must be determined that he has the ability to act in accordance with that understanding. And if he only meets some, but not all, the elements of the insanity test, he can still get a reduced sentence.

These provisions don't just get lip service in Peru. In 2003, The Supreme Court of Peru vacated the convictions and sentences of two men convicted of raping and murdering a Peruvian nun, Lita Castillo. Because of evidence of mental impairment, their sentences (one got 10 years and one got 20 years) were vacated and a new trial was ordered.

As I wrote the other day when outlining the specific charges against Joran (murder with special circumstances and simple theft, not aggravated robbery), the Constitution of Peru also provides rights for the accused, including the presumption of innocence.

24 e) Every person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Joran Van der Sloot is not the only defendant in Peru to challenge the voluntariness of his confession or claim he was denied the right to have counsel present, to assert his innocence after making a confession, or to insist on the presumption of innocence. I wrote here about two other current murder defendants, also housed at Miguel Castro Castro prison awaiting trial, making the same arguments.

Lastly, I just want to repeat that my intention in posting all this stuff is to keep Peru's process and treatment of Joran as transparent as possible. Joran may or may not have killed Stephany Flores -- that's not my call to make and I presume him to be innocent, until a court fairly finds otherwise. Nor is it my call to say whether he's a candidate for the insanity defense. What I am determined to do is ensure this 22 year old, who has turned into the most hated man in the Western Hemisphere, largely because of an unresolved disappearance case in Aruba 5 years ago where the woman's family went on national media night after night accusing him of murder and cover-ups, at least has one person reporting the proceedings through the lens of the Constitution.

Joran will become a blip on the media's radar screen when he does not have a court hearing. And still confined to what we in this country would consider a "hell hole" of a prison. Peruvian officials are on good behavior now, because the whole world is watching. I intend to continue reporting on his case, because I want to keep it in the limelight, which in turn, will keep Peru on good behavior and hopefully, keep Joran safe from the physical and emotional harm that occurs in such prisons. And, to counter as best I can, the uniquely American notion that it's okay for trials to take place in living rooms instead of courtrooms, and be decided by people with zero or less knowledge of the facts or applicable law.

Guilt sells in America, while innocence results in calls for the tv channel changer. That's not something to be proud of, and in Joran's case, I'll do my part, as little as it is, to prevent it from spreading to other countries.