[ad_1]
In a long day, the Chamber of Deputies approved by 73 votes in favor, 52 against and 14 abstentions the constitutional accusation against the magistrate of the Valparaíso Court of Appeals, Silvana Donoso.
So now it must go to the Senate, where its members act as judges, and will define the future of the judge. Meanwhile, Donoso will be suspended from her position and with the prohibition to leave the country.
The libel had been promoted by the RN deputy, Andrés Longton, together with a group of deputies from the ruling party, the DC and the Social Green Regional Federation for an eventual “notable abandonment of duties” by the judge after presiding over the Commission of Probation that in 2016 released Hugo Bustamante, charged today with the crime of the minor Ámbar Cornejo, in Villa Alemana.
The defense of the magistrate invoked the discussion of the so-called preliminary question, providing a series of data, such as that the decision was made by a commission and not a single person, so that the admissibility of the libel was not debated.
Immediately, the members of the Parliamentary Commission that analyzed the libel – made up of Juan Luis Castro (PS), Pablo Prieto (IND-RN), Marcelo Díaz (Unir), Florcita Alarcón (PH) and Gabriel Ascencio (DC) – were heard – who yesterday agreed to recommend that the court reject the accusation, with 1 vote in favor, 1 against and 3 abstentions.
Díaz, Alarcón and Ascencio were the ones who had doubts this Wednesday about the origin of the libel. The first two this day announced that they would reject the accusation, while the Falangist deputy indicated that he would support it.
After listening to all the speeches, it was time to vote on the previous question, which was rejected by the House by 38 votes in favor and 107 against, which led to the substantive discussion.
Longton took the floor to deliver a series of details regarding the errors and transgressions, which in his opinion, Donoso committed in his work and which led to Bustamante being able to get out of jail.
“With an impressive laziness when not even looking, observing antecedents that are elementary and fundamental to make a better decision. That decision was made deliberately and consciously, and that is what was made clear to us through the exposition of the rapporteurs, the brave story of the rapporteurs, because the minister is their hierarchical superior, “she said.
In that sense, the RN deputy delivered a series of testimonies of other cases in which Donoso was involved and in which she would have had a similar act of negligence to that manifested during her role in the Parole Commission. Among other antecedents exposed in front of her peers.
“If Minister Donoso and the commission had as applicants for parole … I am going to put serial killers in the story: Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson or else, I will quote a character from science fiction, Hannibal Lecter; He would have released them only for having served part of the sentence and having had good behavior the previous semester. It’s that simple, turning a blind eye to its dangerousness ”, Longton exemplified about the action -according to him- of the judge.
For his part, Donoso’s lawyer, Jaime Winter, presented a series of grounds for rejecting the chapter of notable abandonment of duties.
“It is not enough to speak of a notable abandonment of duties, that judges apply the law in a different way to how other people intend it,” he said.
In addition, as indicated in the Commission that analyzed the libel, the lawyer insisted that in 2016 it was not an obligation to analyze the Gendarmería’s psychosocial report, which was negative for Bustamante. And the defense, he added, that the decision was adopted by a collegiate body and not by a single judge, who, as they explained, had the same authority and voting decision as the rest of the members of the instance.
“Courts of justice operate collegially and there is a long tradition in this regard. And that does not mean that the person with greater seniority prevails over the others. There is a tradition of making different decisions, and therefore there is complete tolerance for that. It does not mean making a different decision that will be the object of revenge or punishment. It’s what happens every day, ”said Winter.
After the libel was approved, it was defined that the deputies Longton, Gonzalo Fuenzalida (RN) and Daniel Verdessi (DC) are the ones who accuse the Upper House to report the accusation.
Defense of Judge Donoso before a commission that analyzes the accusation against him: “It is a bit unfair that a person is charged with the failings of a system”
The discharges of the president of the Supreme Court for a constitutional accusation against a magistrate: “The murderer of this girl (Ámbar) is not Judge Donoso”
Judges who made up the commission that granted Hugo Bustamante free: They say that his case “caught their attention” and that if they had seen the psychosocial report “it would have caused us some kind of doubts”
[ad_2]
