[ad_1]
It all started because lawyer Hernando Herrera, director of the Excellence in Justice corporation, told Caracol Radio that a judge has just denied a guardianship that Iván Cepeda had filed against Álvaro Uribe and his children.
The senator of the Polo Democrático requested that an opinion of Uribe be protected according to which Cepeda “was related to the Farc,” Herrera reported, and explained that the defense of the former president, led by attorney Jaime Granados, indicated that it was a legitimate public opinion, “and that they were also circumstances of public knowledge”.
But Herrera found other flaws in form, which surely could also have led to Cepeda’s tutelage falling: “The claim seemed written perhaps with great eagerness and something, undoubtedly, of legal malpractice, as the judge in the matter detected”Herrera said.
“The judge denied the protection of Cepeda, who asked that Uribe and his sons’ opinion be protected because they had indicated that the Polo senator was related to the Farc,” Herrera reviewed.
Time identified the judge as María de los Ángeles Díaz, which responded to the action that Cepeda instituted for considering its fundamental rights to human dignity, honor, good name, the right to privacy and image, among others, violated.
Gustavo Gómez, director of the news program ‘6 AM Hoy por hoy’, asked Herrera: “If we were in terms of football, how is the score for the judicial match between Uribe and Cepeda?”.
Herrera proceeded to make his enumeration, with the exception that it corresponds to the last four months.
“Cepeda’s goal was the insurance measure [contra Uribe] of the Instruction Room [de la Corte Suprema de Justicia], which then fell, ”Herrera said.
And from there he went on to analyze “the other thing that has happened in the process, which, we think, with goals from Uribe, is the next”:
- The ratification of the Court of the loss of your competence due to Uribe’s resignation from the Senate (“Uribe’s goal”).
- Denial of the challenge presented by Cepeda against the Prosecutor’s Office (“Uribe’s goal”)
- The determination of Judge 30 in the sense that in In the case of Uribe, the law that applied was 906, against the arguments of the defense of Cepeda (“another [gol de Uribe] additional”)
- The Court’s ratification that Law 906 was the applicable one (“other [gol de Uribe]”)
- The decision of judge 30 to decree the freedom of Uribe who requested his defense
- That decision was subject to second instance, and it was ratified.
- The guardianship that Cepeda has just been denied against Uribe and his children for what they thought.
“The game goes, then, 7 to 1,” Herrera concluded.
[ad_2]
