[ad_1]
The North Central Prosecutor’s Office appealed the resolution that annulled the formalization of the dissociated policeman Claudio Crespo, for an attack that occurred in 2018 against a protester on the Day of the Young Combatant in Huechuraba.
For that reason, he also formalized by blind Gustavo Gatica in the social outbreak, was charged with firing a riot shotgun at a protester, causing injuries to his face.
However, after the police attorney appealed, the Second Guarantee Court of Santiago canceled the hearing. Among the arguments of the defender Pedro Orthusteguy is that he was not notified of the new formalization against his client.
A week after that resolution was adopted, the prosecutor Ximena Chong filed an appeal, establishing that “procedural nullity is only admissible to the extent that the defects of the procedure generate damages that can only be remedied with the declaration of nullity, and that is not observed. It proceeded to formalize, an act that constitutes an act of guarantee par excellence, and the only subsequent discussion was a judicial term after the formalization, in which it was resolved after a debate in which the defense actively intervened ”.
Formalization data
Said case occurred when he served as commissioner of the 40th Special Forces Commissariat and carried out public order control tasks in the Republic of Panama and the Republic of Brazil where a group of people protested.
According to the Central North Prosecutor’s Office, on March 30, 2018, Crespo caused serious injuries to a young man with the initials EPGA, who was also illegally detained. In the same way, he would have deployed a series of actions tending to obstruct the investigation.
In the hearing held on November 13, the prosecutor explained that the pellet shots against the protester were fired from inside the tactical team, where Crespo “takes his weapon through the pocket arranged in the door of the vehicle under the window.”
The persecutor explained that since the public lighting was cut off, “the accused did not have a view to the outside to determine if there were people circulating or at a sufficient angle to direct the shot at the lower third of the body. With that background, he argued that he fired an unsafe and illegal shot.
He also added that at the time of firing the shot, none of the units and police were at risk.
[ad_2]
