[ad_1]
This Thursday the northern regional tax center Xavier ArmendarizHe replied to the Minister of Health, Enrique Paris, and the lawyers of the President Sebastián Piñera and the former head of the Minsal, Jaime Mañalich, in relation to the refusal of the authorities to deliver emails from the Ministry of Health related to the management of the coronavirus pandemic.
He document, of seven cheeks, was presented before the Supreme Court, institution that must decide whether or not to authorize the delivery of the e-mails of Mañalich, his former chief of staff, Itziar Linazasoro, and the Undersecretary of Public Health, Paula Daza.
The Public Ministry investigates an alleged reckless dissemination of pathogenic germs in the middle of the pandemic, a case in which Piñera, Mañalich, Daza and the undersecretary of Assistance Networks, Arturo Zúñiga, are accused.
This week and after the Supreme Court asks Paris for a report explaining his rejection of the delivery of e-mails from the Minsal to the prosecution, the head of Health entered his response to the highest court detailing his reasonssy accusing the Public Ministry of “hindering” the work of his portfolio.
A day later, the October 6, the lawyers for Piñera (Samuel Donoso), the former Minister of Health (Gabriel Zaliasnik), and Daza (Eduardo Riquelme) They also sent a response to the Supreme Court, despite the fact that it had not been required by the Supreme Court. There they assured that the request to obtain the emails of the ministry is about a “unfounded” diligence and that the support of the prosecution “are mere speculations.”
In the Armendariz brief, meanwhile, the prosecutor assures that “in the face of the entry and search order, issued by a competent judge, the requested authority has refused to deliver the information, invoking the protection of national security (in addition to other reasons unrelated to the car debate). However, said authority, in its report, did not even make an outline of opposition regarding the background that is of interest to this investigation.
It also maintains that, “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 ”.
It also ensures “that, given the clear wording of art. 209 so often cited, the only auto controversy is to determine if compliance with the judicial order for the delivery of information effectively and concretely affects national security “ and that “The opposition of the accused in the base case, in this headquarters, is totally inadmissible. The foregoing for the most elementary of legal reasons: They are not holders of the legal asset under discussion ”.
In another part of the writing, Armendariz denies that there is omission on the part of the prosecution, as accused by the defense. “The reference to the witness (Rafael) Araos (head of the Minsal Epidemiology) is misleading, since, as the defense knows, this person’s statement was incorporated into the investigative folder later questioned. Furthermore, the merit of the testimony of this witness does not have the effect that the defenses are intended to give. There are no other people in this situation, so the plural should not be used in his presentation (“Witnesses omitted”) ”.
And he insists that “in reality, The progress of the investigation has reaffirmed for the undersigned the relevance and need to carry out the investigative diligence in question”.
“It cannot be left to the discretion of the requested which information is delivered. To accept such a position would clearly jeopardize the effectiveness of any criminal investigation and would constitute a dire precedentIt goes without saying that the selection of the relevant evidence should be left to the investigating body or, where appropriate, fall within the sphere of competence of the guarantee judge, ”the document states.
In any case, the prosecutor granted a point to the defenses: that “the only basis put forward, in good accounts, would be the need to keep secret the police and military deployment that would have been carried out for the tasks of controlling the movement of the population. Aspect in which, of course, no direct impact has the required authority, since the detail of the deployment of uniformed units is not within its competence ”.
He also accused the lawyers of the accused of carrying out an improper action: “Behind these questions a kind of appeal is concealed, totally inappropriate, trying to take the matter to a higher instance, under a modality not foreseen in our procedural system.” Thus, it maintains that what corresponded was for them to file an annulment incident but not this response mechanism.
