[ad_1]
He North Central prosecutor, Xavier Armendáriz, responded to the arguments delivered by the Minister of Health, Enrique Paris, and the lawyers of President Sebastián Piñera and Jaime Mañalich, to refuse to deliver documentation and emails in the framework of the investigation into the deaths of covid-19.
The above was presented to the Supreme Court, before it decides to authorize or deny the delivery of emails from the former Minister of Health, Jaime Mañalich, and the Undersecretary of Public Health, Paula Daza, among others.
As argued by the Minister of Health, the request of the Public Ministry hinders the performance of the ministry he directs, in addition to qualifying it as “indiscriminate, imprecise and excessive in scope”, among others.
Given that, the prosecutor indicated that “Accepting such a position would clearly jeopardize the effectiveness of any criminal investigation and it would constitute a disastrous precedent ”.
In detail of the grounds of the minister for his refusal to enter and register the requested material, they refuted that, in terms of the need to reserve private data of patients, it is “obviously an issue that does not say any relationship with the field of the present controversy (probable effect on national security) ”and that the authorities involved“they should not have sensitive data on specific patients ”.
Likewise, they ensure that in the event of any affected parties (in their intimacy or privacy, not in national security) it should be considered that the The law itself authorizes the Public Ministry to access said records.
Likewise, regarding the need to reserve on the purchase of certain medical supplies, they argue that “it is not the object of the investigation carried out, the truth is that the report does not clearly explain what would be the effect on national security that, in a concrete way , it affects national security ”.
And with regard to the need for reserve to preserve national security, they argue that in “In no way has it even been suggested that the delivery of the requested emails affects national security, in relation to the facts investigated (data on the proper management of the pandemic, as an acute infectious disease) ”.
“Such a secret must be the most restrictive of all, since it can involve, no less, the impunity of senior State agents in a matter as relevant as the management of a pandemic, which affects all citizens directly ”, they add.
They also question that “the presentation of the defenses focuses on questioning the merit of the request made by this prosecutor’s office and the subsequent judicial authorization (…) behind These questions conceal a kind of appeal, totally inappropriate, intending to take the matter to a higher instance, under a modality not foreseen in our procedural system ”.
They specify that if the defendants’ defenses intended to challenge the lack of grounds for the Public Ministry’s request, they had to by legal mandate do so by means of an annulment incident or another general complaint mechanism of the Criminal Procedure Code.
They detail that “the magistrate who issued the entry and registration order expressly ordered, before carrying out the diligence, its performance, omitting the prior notice referred to in the aforementioned art. 209. For the rest, the procedure also had the prior knowledge of the authority ”.
They question that the minister, in his report, he did not even make a sketch of opposition regarding the antecedents that interest this investigation.
“As in any other case, the interested party may request, in due course, the return of information that may be irrelevant to the facts under investigation.”
They emphasize that the only controversy is to determine whether compliance with the judicial order for the delivery of information effectively and concretely affects national security.
“The opposition of the defendants in the base case, in this headquarters, is totally inappropriate. The foregoing for the most elementary of legal reasons: They are not holders of the legal asset under discussion ”.
[ad_2]
