[ad_1]
Dozens of interceptions made to former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez are part of the evidence that served the Supreme Court of Justice to open a formal investigation – for alleged bribery of a witness and procedural fraud – and issue an assurance measure.
In some of them, the ex-president is heard speaking with his attorney Diego Cadena, about the visits to witnesses in prisons and procedures that today have the lawyer in house arrest.
(We invite you to read: Iván Cepeda says that the illegal act of Cadena benefited Álvaro Uribe)
And although Uribe distanced himself from Cadena’s conduct, before the process passed to the Prosecutor’s Office and the former president regained his freedom, they had already questioned the audios.
(It may interest you: The war that will prolong the case against Álvaro Uribe after his freedom)
After describing them as illegal, they first reported the case to the Prosecutor’s Office and asked to investigate the CTI analyst in charge of wiretapping. Then, one of Uribe’s bishops, Representative Ricardo Ferro, He denounced José Luis Barceló, the magistrate in charge of the genesis of the investigation and who summoned the former president to the investigation.
Former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez, through his lawyer, Davir Espinisa (left) became a civil party in the case.
Héctor Fabio Zamora. TIME
‘He wanted to imprison me’
And Uribe – through his lawyer David Espinosa – became a victim and has already expanded the complaint against the former magistrate on two occasions, who has just been summoned to version by the investigating representatives: the Uribista Edward Rodríguez, and Mauricio Toro (Partido Green). The first precision made by those close to the case is that not all the audios are questioned and it is not the only evidence collected against Uribe.
Uribista Edward Rodríguez is the investigating representative in the case against José Luis Barceló.
Democratic Center
But the ex-president seeks to demonstrate that Barceló violated several rights and asks that he be criminally prosecuted for prevaricate per action, which includes a penalty of up to 8 years.
In fact, he asked that several processes against Barceló be unified and that he be called to an investigation, as the then magistrate did with him.
(You may be interested in: Monsalve’s file, the ‘expara’ who unleashed the process against Uribe)
While he was in prison, Uribe expanded the complaint against Barceló on two occasions and asked to be called for an investigation.
EL TIEMPO had exclusive access to the two extensions of the complaint that the ex-president made (the first on August 19 and the other 24 hours later), while he was at home in jail, and begins by qualifying as “curious” that after Barceló closed the investigation against Iván Cepeda and certified copies from him, the case remained in the hands of the same magistrate.
(On the subject: The fortune of Cadena, the controversial lawyer of former President Uribe)
In addition, it draws attention to the “historical speed” with which the togado acted when Juan Guillermo Monsalve – a key witness against Uribe – said he was being pressured.
“It was an unavoidable finding, it was understood that this number was the contact to notify Córdoba about the issues that are being filed against him (…) That is not a judicial error”: Barceló.
“What Barceló also did before delivering the case (which constitutionally it should never have had) was to allow multiple interceptions of my phone to enter the file, but not because my interception had been legally ordered, but because in another process (brought against the representative Nilton Córdoba), supposedly listening to the representative, he had intercepted me by “mistake,” ”says Uribe.
(On the subject: Why didn’t Magistrate Reyes answer 18 questions to Uribismo?)
And he adds that, “according to Barceló, they didn’t realize it until much later.” But, “even after the suspension was ordered, I continued to be listened to.”
(Read also: Former senator’s adviser captured for alleged links with the ELN)
Óscar Álvarez, an analyst at the CTI, assured that he warned about the error of the interception of Álvaro Uribe.
Uribe assures that despite the error, the audios were not excluded and an attempt was made to justify the error by pointing out that, when Córdoba was asked for the telephone number, he gave his number. “That was denied by Córdoba”, Uribe says.
(In context: Santiago Uribe case filed for financing of ‘paras’)
And after citing other episodes (such as the alleged concealment of the file and the refusal to take evidence) he concludes: “With this brief contextualization, I will demonstrate how Barceló consciously and voluntarily violated several legal provisions, which can be adapted to the crime of prevaricate by action, with the sole purpose of unjustly imprisoning me”.
The CTI analyst says that, upon noticing the error, “he immediately expressed verbally to the Case Manager (…) Clara López as Investigative Manager. And to Iván Cortes.
The defense
Barceló has not commented on the summons to version. But when the complaint was known, he pointed out: “The Court does not intervene illegally; If you do, you do it legally, as the law says. Now it is said that there is a complaint against us; We will present our arguments and the Commission will carry out the respective investigation”.
(See here all the articles of the Investigative Unit of EL TIEMPO)
And he had already said: “Yese it was an unavoidable finding, it was understood that this number was the contact to notify Córdoba about the matters that are going on against him and that is why it was taken into account for monitoring. That is not a judicial error”.
The testimony of the CTI analyst, Óscar Álvarez, will be key, since, as he said, he warned of the error in a timely manner.
Jaime Granados, criminal lawyer and head of Uribe’s defense, pushes the case of the interceptions before the Prosecutor’s Office.
What did the CTI say?
This part of the complaint was in charge of the lawyer Jaime Granados, head of Álvaro Uribe Vélez’s defense.
In a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office, he pointed out to Francisco Barbosa that, in his opinion, “There are sufficient elements of evidence to proclaim possible criminal responsibility against different public servants for the serious and irregular violation of privacy of which former President Uribe was a victim, in attention to the
interception of your personal telephone carried out between March 9, 2018
and April 9, 2018, events that, despite their seriousness, have just
serve two years and remain in absolute impunity. “
In his extended complaint, Granados assures that on October 10, 2018, they filed a criminal complaint against investigator Óscar Álvarez, for the possible
commission of the crime of prevaricato by omission.
And the criminal prosecutor emphasizes that, in a statement before the Prosecutor’s Office, Álvarez said how he had proceeded when he realized the error: “Immediately express verbally to the
Case Manager or the owner of the investigation who is the respective authority (…) To the officials, Clara López as Case Manager, Investigator Manager. AND
to Doctor Iván Cortes “.
INVESTIGATIVE UNIT
[email protected]
On twitter: @UinvestigativaET
[ad_2]
