Supreme Court abstained from opening investigation against Petro due to Uribe’s complaint



[ad_1]

Featured news from Judicial

The former president had withdrawn from the complaint, filed for libel and slander, considering that the high court did not offer him guarantees to continue with the judicial process.

The Supreme Court of Justice, with a presentation by the magistrate Héctor Javier Alarcón, issued an injunction in favor of the current senator Gustavo Petro, for the alleged crime of fraud in a judicial or administrative resolution of the Police due to the non-existence of the fact, just as he abstained from open an investigation for slander and indirect injury, admitting the withdrawal of the complaint made by former president Álvaro Uribe Vélez.

On September 27, 2018, the ex-president had filed a complaint for libel and slander against Petro, based on the fact that he had publicly assured, in a radio interview granted on August 24 of that same year, that he was bribing witnesses in criminal proceedings and that, in addition, on his Twitter account, he related it to false positives.

Regarding the alleged fraud of a judicial or administrative resolution of the Police, a court of the Bogotá circuit had asked the leader of Colombia Humana to rectify what was said, which he did not do but, on the contrary, he would have ratified in several trills.

In context: Álvaro Uribe withdrew from the complaint he filed against Gustavo Petro for slander

In August of last year, Uribe, through his attorney-in-fact, the lawyer Abelardo de la Espriella, withdrew from the complaint because he considered that the Court did not provide him with guarantees to continue with the judicial process. Thus, the Investigation Chamber of the high court decided to accept the withdrawal “accepting the will of the complainant”, in the case of insult and slander, refraining from initiating an investigation and declaring the criminal action extinguished.

Regarding the fraud of a judicial or administrative resolution of the Police, when analyzing the scope of what happened, the high court determined the non-existence of the denounced act. In this sense, he uttered self-inhibiting.

[ad_2]