[ad_1]
This Monday, the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court will resume the discussion on the criminal system in which the process against Álvaro Uribe should be carried out – for alleged bribery in criminal proceedings and procedural fraud -, which was sent to the Prosecutor’s Office after that the ex-president resigned his seat and was outside the orbit of the high court.
(Also read: What awaits the case of Álvaro Uribe in the Supreme Court)
As anticipated by EL TIEMPO, Judge Gerson Chaverra’s presentation indicates that Law 906 must govern, as was requested by both the defense of the ex-president, as well as the Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office. Senator Iván Cepeda, victim in the case, insisted that he should continue under Law 600, through which he had already been charged and imposed an assurance measure, with home detention.
Rafael Nieto Loaiza, constitutional lawyer.
However, an addition to Chaverra’s presentation, which is still under discussion, set off the alarms of Uribe.
(You may be interested: the Prosecutor’s Office calls Diego Cadena, former attorney-in-fact of Álvaro Uribe)
Indeed, members of the high court confirmed to EL TIEMPO that in addition to settling the alleged conflict, Chaverra points out that the process must go to the Prosecutor’s Office at the procedural stage in which it was in Court.
(Also read: The reasons why Uribe appears in the call for trial to Cadena)
Magistrate Gerson Chaverra.
In practice, this would mean that Uribe, who has already completed 60 days at home, would remain in detention. And the formulation of charges would be equated with an indictment.
The constitutional lawyer Rafael Nieto, a militant of Uribismo, was the first to react.
Nieto began by warning that he did not understand why the guarantee judge before whom the alleged conflict of jurisdiction was brought sent him to the Court if there was no such conflict. In any case, for Nieto it is clear that if the Court goes beyond establishing under which system the case should follow, it would be violating various Uribe rights and legal regulations, touching the limits of prevaricate.
The Court cannot decide on what does not have jurisdiction and the Statutory Law is clear
Prevarication and even usurpation of functions
According to Nieto, the Statute of Administration of Justice, in its article 18, is clear in stating that, in these cases, the Court must only state which law governs.
(It may be of interest to you: Why Petro seeks a meeting with the defense of a designated vandal leader)
“The conflicts of jurisdiction that arise between authorities of the ordinary jurisdiction that have different jurisdictional specialty and that belong to different districts, will be resolved by the Supreme Court of Justice in the respective Chamber of Cassation that according to the law has the character of functional superior of the authorities in conflict, and in any other event by the Plenary Chamber of the Corporation “, indicates the Statute.
That is why Nieto warns that If the Full Chamber of the Court goes further, it would not only prevaricate but also violate it. due process to Uribe.
“The Court cannot decide on what does not have jurisdiction and the Statutory Law or Law 270 of 1996 is clear,” Nieto explained to EL TIEMPO.
(In other news: Case against soccer ‘czars’ goes to criminal justice and the US)
According to the lawyer, if this were to happen, it would show a “spirit of political persecution and violation of fundamental and procedural rights.”
But Nieto is not the only one who, in his opinion, believes that the Court would go into excess and usurpation of functions if it went further.
Attorney Marlon Díaz, agreed that the Court should only rule on jurisdiction by way of law 906 and not about process status
“It would go too far,” said Díaz and in a similar sense, close friends of the former president spoke in dialogue with EL TIEMPO.
(Find here all the articles of the Investigative Unit of this newspaper)
“When it was the other way around, they went from law 906 to 600, in the case of León Fredy Muñoz, Jesús Santrich, if they started the processes from scratch. In preliminary. But in this case, from 600 to 906, if they want to define what is charged” they pointed out.
The high court takes up the discussion this Monday.
INVESTIGATIVE UNIT
[email protected]@UinvestigativaET
[ad_2]
