[ad_1]
The former senator and leader of the Democratic Center went to said political entity to denounce alleged irregularities in the criminal process conducted by the Supreme Court of Justice for alleged procedural fraud and bribery. The high court pointed out that the IPU is a political organization that cannot judge its judicial actions and classified this issue as a threat to judicial independence.
The Human Rights Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), an international organization that brings together the parliaments of 173 countries, admitted for its study a complaint filed by the former senator and former president of Colombia, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, alleging the existence of irregularities in the An investigation that the Supreme Court of Justice initiated against him for alleged procedural fraud and bribery. The body of a political and non-judicial nature declared itself competent to study the appeal in depth and asked its secretary general to request the official position on the matter from the Colombian judicial authorities.
Former President Álvaro Uribe denounced the IPU for alleged violations of due process against him, indicating, for example, that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, where it initiated a preliminary investigation in 2018, allegedly did not have jurisdiction to do so, a fact that has been rejected. by the same high court on several occasions. Uribe Vélez indicated that supposedly his investigators have not been impartial, that evidence has been hidden, and he insisted on describing the telephone interceptions carried out as irregular.
(It may interest you: Former President Uribe was formally investigated: what is in his case?)
In response to requests raised by that body, the president of Congress, Arturo Char, responded on October 24, indicating that it was his duty to respect the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, as well as to respect the decisions issued by justice. And the Human Rights Commission of the House of Representatives highlighted the separation of powers and that it intended to hold a debate on the leakage of judicial files to the media and the possible illegal modification of evidence by public servants.
With these elements, the Human Rights Committee of the IPU pointed out that the former president’s complaint was well filed and that it “refers to alleged threats, intimidating actions, arbitrary detention and arrest, absence of due process in the investigative phase and absence of impartial judicial processes, all of them accusations that are part of the Committee’s mandate ”. In the same terms, the Committee admitted the complaint that was also filed by the Chamber representative Álvaro Hernán Prada, who is also being investigated by the Supreme Court.
(It may interest you: Investigated and investigator: Álvaro Hernán Prada will join the Accusation Commission)
As is known, the case against Uribe and Prada began jointly in the Supreme Court for allegedly trying to manipulate the testimony of witnesses who have testified in court against the former president and who have linked him to paramilitary groups. On August 3, 2020, the Examining Room resolved the situation of the former president by ordering his house arrest and releasing, but linked, Prada. Later, the former president resigned from Congress and with that, his file was sent to the Attorney General’s Office. Uribe Vélez was released on October 10, and on November 7, a court determined that the case should continue at the point of deciding whether or not to be called to trial.
What does the Supreme Court say?
In a five-page official letter, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court indicated that as an independent jurisdictional body and highest court of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Republic of Colombia “it will not establish any position regarding the“ complaints ”and the“ cases ”processed by said Committee. The Court respects the activity of the NGO Inter-Parliamentary Union, as an organization that represents the legislative branch of governments worldwide and an institution that fosters cooperation between parliaments with each other, through political dialogue. However, as an independent judicial body, taking into account the principle of separation of powers and protected by jurisdictional sovereignty, it refrains from engaging in this type of dialogue, which is alien to its constitutional powers and functions ”.
In addition, it indicated that it does not have to render defense of its actions to a political organization and described the case as an inadmissible interference with judicial independence. “Much less can the Inter-Parliamentary Union, under the belief of advancing a” case “for alleged violation of human rights, try the actions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Colombia and, under that understanding, invite it to” dialogue “and” cooperate “in the search for a” satisfactory solution “to their interests as an international association of parliamentarians”.
“Such a warning is inadmissible as it represents a threat to judicial independence. The Court rejects this type of interference and invites the Inter-Parliamentary Union to fulfill its mandate to assist its members and promote human rights, respecting the principles of sovereignty and judicial independence. The judges pronounce themselves through their decisions and these, unless they are reserved, can be consulted and subjected to public scrutiny. But an international non-governmental organization cannot interfere in judicial processes in the domestic sphere or exert pressure against the members of the judiciary, ”added the Court.
[ad_2]
