[ad_1]
Bolivian justice annulled the arrest warrant against former leftist president Evo Morales (2006-2019) for alleged crimes of terrorism, a week after the election of his dolphin Luis Arce as the new president, Judge Jorge Quino reported on Monday.
The arrest warrant against the ex-president exiled in Argentina was lifted because “Their rights were violated, basically the right to defense because the former president was not duly summoned, “said Quino, president of the La Paz Departmental Court of Justice, to the Unitel channel.
The Bolivian Attorney General’s Office had indicted Morales on July 6 for alleged crimes of terrorism and their financing, and again requested his preventive detention.
Another arrest warrant for sedition and terrorism It was handed down in December against Morales after he resigned from the presidency on November 10 amid a social upheaval and accusations of electoral fraud.
The former indigenous president and his party, the Movement for Socialism (MAS), had rejected all charges and claimed they were politically motivated.
The prosecution had also opened another case against Morales for alleged fraud in the October 2019 elections, in which he won re-election to a fourth term but were later annulled after complaints of irregularities. There was no progress in this case in justice.
In addition, the prosecution had tried earlier this year to get the Interpol issued an international arrest warrant against Morales, but the body rejected it on the grounds that it was political, not criminal, matters.
Morales was the target of numerous accusations by the transitional right-wing government of Jeanine Áñez throughout the campaign towards the October 18 elections, which won Arce, his former Finance Minister and architect of the “economic miracle” of the 14 years of his mandate.
On September 4, the Bolivian government contacted the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to denounce Morales for alleged crimes against humanity due to the road blockades in August.
However, this action appeared to be merely symbolic and in search of electoral benefits, since a State can ask the ICC to examine whether it is appropriate to intervene in a certain case, but the Court does so only when the national criminal system has failed.
The Bolivian prosecutor’s office had said it would investigate the blockades, but never reported any progress.
[ad_2]
