[ad_1]
Two of the five judges who made up the Parole Commission that set free Hugo Bustamante in 2016, accused of the crime of the minor Ámbar Cornejo, they presented today before the Parliamentary Commission that analyzes the constitutional accusation against Judge Silvana Donoso, who presided over the judicial instance.
It’s about the judges Loreto Leon, of the Viña del Mar Guarantee Court, and of Alonso Arancibia, of the Oral Criminal Court of the garden city. Both magistrates provided information regarding the work carried out at that time, how the analysis of Bustamante’s request for release was carried out, and the things that caught their attention in said process.
All this under the watchful eye of the parliamentarians who make up the commission and the deputy Andrés Longton (RN), who presented the libel against Judge Donoso along with various parliamentarians from the ruling party and the opposition.
“I remember the case of Bustamante, because it just caught my attention. Because he was condemned for a simple homicide, a long sentence and we dedicate him, And we even went to the sentence, and we had the opportunity to see, I remember that we saw that he was accused of a qualified homicide and ended up condemned for a simple homicide. We saw it”, revealed the lawyer León.
For his part, Judge Arancibia confirmed that the instance in which he participated did not have the psychosocial report in view, which contained a negative background on Bustamante. “It did not reach our hands and if it had reached our hands, perhaps, there would have been a debate.”
To add that this report -of which he read an extract of the document released by the press- “in the psychopathological elements it says “antisocial personality disorder traits. He has a problematic drug use not problematic and without treatment ”. That would have affected in some way in the qualification of the conduct court, because a person who has an unproblematized problem drug use and without treatment should not have a positive rating ‘good or very good’ in the periods prior to their conduct rating “.
“If we had seen this (psychosocial) report, it would have caused us some kind of doubts and we would have debated about it. But this report was not presented to our commission “added.
Arancibia also took charge of some questions raised about the work carried out by the instance.
“It has been said that the Commission acted in an almost bureaucratic manner, making a kind of checklist, only seeing that the requirements were verified, without further study. It would allow me to refute that statement that has circulated, because so much so that Within the study of the cases, we managed to detect some cases of people who were with their sentence completely served, we even found a case of a subject who had been acquitted of the charges that appeared within his probation record ”.
In this sense, and after learning that the judges had in view Bustamante’s sentence and the background for which he was convicted, the deputies of the instance consulted the magistrates about the reason why they did not request more background information on the subject before ruling .
Judge León indicated that “Personally, we are all uncomfortable with the result, which is the background to this accusation. But we have to respond to our role. We are summoned to a court as judges and we have to apply the principle of legality, impartiality and equality before the law. In that we were demanding and we complied with the law ”.
His peer Arancibia, meanwhile, declared before the parliamentary instance that “Decree Law 321 that governed at the time we were in session did not establish the possibility of requesting these new information.” To add that “Judges can only do what the law allows us, no more than that.”
[ad_2]
