[ad_1]
With the reading of the closing arguments of the parties, the disciplinary trial against patrolmen Harby Damián Rodríguez Díaz and Juan Camilo Lloreda Cubillos ended this Thursday, who are prosecuted for abuse of authority and the murder of law student Javier Humberto Ordóñez, who died after a police operation in western Bogotá on September 9.
(Read also: Final straight line in disciplinary trial for the Ordóñez case)
During the hearing on Thursday, the delegate attorney for the Public Force, Herman Rincón, first heard the closing arguments of the patrolman Lloreda Cubillos, who in the process, in which he assumed his own defense -without lawyers-, did not give his version of the facts during the hearings, nor did he question any of the witnesses.
Lloreda began his intervention arguing that since this investigation began, first in the General Inspection of the Police and then in the Attorney General’s Office, there have been irregularities such as that there was never a preliminary investigation of the facts but that from the beginning it was a formal investigation.
He also pointed out that it was “absurd” that this investigation had been started after a journalistic publication. And it added that due process and the presumption of innocence were violated, and that during the process, due to procedural economy, the rights of the accused were violated, “which shows more desire to punish than to find the truth.”
(You may be interested: The doctor who performed an autopsy on Ordóñez spoke of the severity of the injuries)
During the trial hearings, at one point the patrolman Harby Damián Rodríguez pointed out to his partner that he had hit Ordóñez at the CAI, but Lloreda argued that this version could not be taken into account in the ruling because Rodríguez acted as disciplined, gave a free version not a sworn statement, and “he was not in the position to testify because he has been admitted to psychiatry and that means that his version cannot be taken into account.”
However, Lloreda did cite another part of his partner’s statement in which he said that he was attacked by Ordóñez the night of his death., and that in response to that aggression he had to use the taser.
He also cited that the Forensic Medicine exam and the autopsy do not link the use of the taser with the cause of death, so that fact cannot be attributed to him. “The deceased had grade 3 toxicology, which led to assault us and we had to do the procedure to immobilize him. He suffered several traumas, many of which were products of the fight that occurred prior to our arrival, there he received several traumas “, he pointed.
And it is that during the trial the patrolman Rodríguez pointed out that they arrived at the neighborhood where Ordóñez was with two friends because they received a call to attend a fight in which he was allegedly involved.
According to the opinion of Legal Medicine, Ordóñez died as a result of trauma that caused the explosion of one kidney and the serious deterioration of the other, which led to internal bleeding.
César Melgarejo / EL TIEMPO.
(We recommend: Patrolman recognizes that Javier Ordóñez was beaten at the CAI)
Regarding the testimony of Wilder Salazar, Ordóñez’s friend who was with him that night and was also transferred to the CAI of Villaluz, the patrolman Lloreda said that part of his account refers to “facts that he heard from the news and the opinion of Legal Medicine , but not to things that record “.
He also said that Ordóñez’s friend pointed out at some point: ‘The one who killed my friend was the patrolman Damien’.
He concluded by saying that there is no evidence to deduce that Ordóñez’s death was the result of the struggle seen in videos broadcast on the internet, that he was attacked by Ordóñez, that in the videos within the CAI of Villa Luz it is never seen that there was attacked the law student and that it was shown that he “he acted in the exercise of duty” by answering the call for a fight and then capturing a person for assault on a public servant.
For his part, Yeison Cárdenas, a lawyer representing the victim (Ordóñez’s family) asked that the patrols receive the highest sentence, relative to dismissal, because “Ordóñez’s case is perhaps one of the most aberrant that occurred this year “and because in that death, in his opinion, the police had to do with it.
“There were provocations from the patrolmen who said: ‘he is not saved from this,’ and indeed he was not saved because he was murdered,” the lawyer sentenced, who added that the autopsy said that Ordóñez’s body had traces of a rounded shape “that they correspond with the boots of the uniformed men. ”
He concluded by saying that the law student was tortured and murdered within the Villaluz CAI, for which he asked for justice “and that the men be convicted of aggravated torture and aggravated homicide” with the highest penalty.
(Also: On video: policemen entered Ordóñez dragged to the CAI of Villa Luz)
Lastly, Jorge Páramo, defender of the patrolman Rodríguez, spoke, who pointed out that “only the guilty refuse to take the stand” and that their client must be declared free of responsibility as fraud and guilt of the faults committed.
He explained that the patrolmen went to the place where Ordóñez was that night to respond to a fight, that three subjects were approached and asked to go home but that Ordóñez attacked them.
He pointed out that in addition to the videos widely disseminated on the internet, there are other previous moments that would prove that aggression and the fight, but that these were not valued in conjunction with the one published by the media, “which led to the omission of part of the facts and public opinion having access to a partial part of the information.”
He added that due to his alcohol level, “the deceased not only rebuked but also prevented police procedures,” that the videos do not show aggressions and that even if there were, they were not committed by the patrolman Rodríguez.
“The videos both inside the CAI and outside show the good behavior of Harby,” he said, after adding that a film document has greater credibility than a statement because the recording is a faithful document while in the testimonies part can be omitted of the truth.
During the disciplinary trial, videos were shown showing how Ordóñez was dragged into the CAI of Villa Luz.
(More notes on the case: Did Ordóñez attack the police? The contradictory testimonies of the case)
He continued by saying that there is no evidence that his defendant had used the taser or attacked Ordóñez with fists and kicks, neither inside nor outside the CAI, and that the testimony of Salazar, Ordóñez’s friend, speaks of attacks by a uniformed man. but that was not Rodríguez.
The lawyer also pointed out that although in the video published by the media Ordóñez is heard saying “no more”, he was not collaborating to be handcuffed. Likewise, he said that Rodríguez never had custody of the victim, and that in the videos inside the CAI it is seen that different policemen are the ones who throw him to the ground and drag him in.
“Although there was abusive behavior in the police practice, it cannot be attributed to my son-daughter, there is no proof whatsoever,” concluded attorney Páramo, who asked to exonerate Rodríguez from disciplinary responsibility.
With the culmination of the closing arguments, a date was set for the reading of the disciplinary ruling on Tuesday, October 27 at 8 am, when it will be known if the patrols will be disciplined or not.
Other Justice notes that may interest you:
-‘We are in office until Congress decides on the resignations’: magistrate of the Disciplinary Chamber
-JEP elects Eduardo Cifuentes as its new president
-‘There were political interests of Andrade in addition to Ocaña Gamarra ‘: Prosecutor’s Office
JUSTICE
On twitter: @JusticiaET
[email protected]
[ad_2]
