[ad_1]
They were weeks of expectations that this Thursday came to an end. In a divided ruling, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court decided to grant partial access to the Prosecutor’s Office to the emails of the Ministry of Health (Minsal) in the framework of the investigation into the deaths from COVID-19.
The decision of the highest court generated reactions. For the alawyer of the former Minister of Health Jaime Mañalich, Gabriel Zaliasnik, the ruling of the Supreme “is the right thing to do.” “It is a resolution attached to the law, which I believe evidences the foundation that Minister Paris had in opposing at the time. The Public Ministry in that sense was not acting subject to the specific procedural norm that the minister invoked,” he said to Emol.
He added that the resolution of the highest court “vindicates, in the face of criticism from some at the time, the actions of Minister Paris. He acted in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court in that sense has agreed with him.”
Meanwhile, he argued that what happened should “invite” the National Prosecutor, Jorge Abbott, to reflect on the actions of the Public Ministry: “It is something that we have said for quite some time to the National Prosecutor, Mr. Abbott, who should review this situation That there are bad practices, that the Public Ministry must take charge. “
Finally, he criticized that “the National Prosecutor is good for the straw in the other’s eye and not the beam in the own eye. And it seems to me for the same as when the Supreme Court pronounces and gives an account of the foundations that Minister Paris had to oppose it, I think it at least invites the National Prosecutor to reflect. “
It should be remembered that the decision of the Supreme Court was also valued by the Minister of Health, Enrique Paris. During the delivery of the COVID-19 report, the Secretary of State was consulted in this regard, and although he indicated that “he would not speak of triumphs or defeats,” he said that “the Supreme Court has acted very correctly.”
“What we asked was that the Supreme Court order us which and what type of emails to deliver. We believe that it is the right thing to do, because the first request was to deliver everything, blindly, without any indication, or any special dedication to certain types of mail. We made it clear that by handing over everything, national security is endangered and, above all, the law on the rights and duties of patients is violated.
Navarro targets the member lawyers
Different is the opinion of Senator Alejandro Navarro, complainant in the case, who stressed that two of the three majority votes belong to member lawyers (together with Minister Carlos Künsemüller, member lawyers Jorge Lagos and María Cristina Gajardo voted), while those who were for the full delivery of information are ministers holders (Haroldo Brito and Jorge Dahm).
“We are going to review (a) the member lawyers, because an important part of the Chamber of the Court was to deliver the emails so that there is transparency, so that the objective of seeking justice is fulfilled and there is no impunity. I regret the decision of the Cut, but we will continue to insist, at all levels, for transparency in the pandemic process, because there will be no impunity, “he stressed.
Likewise, it stated that “the refusal to deliver the part concerning the purchase of fans puts us in a dilemma. The Bolivian minister was fired because he paid a premium for the fans and we will not know, therefore, how much they cost the State of Chile. That is not national security, it is a national budget ”.
Celis (PPD): “Let’s get to know the emails”
In other reactions from the political world, the President of the Chamber’s Health Commission, Deputy Ricardo Celis (PPD), He pointed out that “it seems appropriate, because it will not be possible to claim that there is sensitive data that has to do with national security.”
“What Chile wants to know is if there was manipulation of information by the cabinet of former minister Mañalich. What the Supreme Court is pointing out points in the correct sense that we are going to know the emails. That is the essential thing,” added the parliamentarian.
For Celis, the argument put forward by the Government that there would be sensitive information in these emails is an “excuse for the defense. The prosecutor Armendariz’s objective was always to search for information regarding whether or not the information data had been manipulated. regarding deceased and infected patients “.
Deputy Soto (PS): Supreme Court ruling represents a “setback”
A different opinion is that of the deputy of the Socialist Party (PS) Leonardo Soto, who considered that the Supreme Court ruling represents a “setback on the path to transparency that our country had experienced.”
In the parliamentarian’s opinion, the brief “has two very serious problems. First, it notably limits the powers that the Public Ministry has to carry out investigations into corruption, public negligence, etc. It places a very large limit, an obstacle to the investigation, in circumstances where this institution is the only one empowered to investigate when crimes have been committed in the public administration. “
Likewise, Soto argued, that “a partial reservation of the information in the emails is allowed, which can certainly be understandable when there are national security reasons, but what does not seem reasonable is that the Supreme Court has given it the power to decide which ones they are the mails that are subject to reservation to the Ministry of Health itself.
According to the deputy, “the Supreme Court should have delivered criteria to the Minsal to be able to discriminate what is of national security and what is not, and likewise it should have forced that such antecedents be displayed, but crossing out the names of the people involved or the circumstances that if they could affect the security of the country ”.
Deputy Torres (DC): “The ruling does not establish precise criteria”
In addition, the deputy Víctor Torres (DC) He argued that “I would have liked the Supreme Court to have established the possibility of having broad access to said emails, understanding that there is information that can be very useful both for this investigation and also for other sections that have been questioned, linked, for example , to the purchase of supplies and other elements “.
“The ruling, in addition to giving the Ministry of Health wide possibilities to determine what may or may not be considered national security, does not establish criteria that are more precise and, from that perspective, we also have doubts about what would happen if there were an investigation that requires that information that cannot be delivered today, “he added.
In this sense, he considered that “the optimal thing would have been for the Supreme Court to establish a formula so that all emails were delivered and those paragraphs determined as sensitive data or eventually those that could precisely involve national security could be marked.”
“In this way we could facilitate the prosecution’s investigative process and also comply with transparency standards, which is what one would expect in a situation like the one we are experiencing in this pandemic that, as we have insisted, has had an impact on the credibility of what was the management of the Ministry of Health while ex-minister Jaime Mañalich was in charge and obviously its implications, which could have had both in the number of infections and also deaths, “he concluded.
[ad_2]
