[ad_1]
After learning that the Inter-Parliamentary Union declared itself competent to review the complaint for four alleged irregularities presented by the former president and former senator Álvaro Uribe Vélez, due to the process that is being followed for alleged bribery of witnesses and procedural fraud, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice will rule on a request made by that body.
The Criminal Chamber is preparing a response -which is collecting the signatures of its magistrates-, and in it he refers to a communication sent to them by the Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in which he reports that the Human Rights Committee of that organization opened two cases and decided to admit for review the complaints of alleged violations of their rights, made by Uribe, as well as by the representative to the Chamber Álvaro Hernán Prada.
(Read also: Inter-Parliamentary Union accepts case for complaint of former senator Uribe).
The criminal investigation against Uribe was in the Investigation Room of the Supreme Court of Justice until he resigned from the Senate, and the process passed to the Attorney General’s Office. That of Prada – investigated for the same events as Uribe – remains in the hands of the high court.
By agreeing to study the case, the Inter-Parliamentary Union asked the Court to expose your position on the accusations of Uribe and Prada and made several questions.
However, EL TIEMPO knew that the Court will not establish a position regarding these requirements, stating that the Inter-Parliamentary Union is interfering with the judiciary, since it does not have the competence to make this type of consultation, and recalling that the Supreme Court of Justice is an independent body.
(Read also: What comes in the case against Uribe after being charged with bribery?)
The Court considers that The Inter-Parliamentary Union is an NGO that represents the legislative powers of the different countries and for this reason its scope is given in that area: that of cooperation between congresses and parliaments, and in political dialogue, not in the judicial one, for which it cannot interfere in criminal proceedings or exert pressure on officials of the Judicial Branch.
This means that for the Court, the Inter-Parliamentary Union cannot act as if it were an international human rights court with competence to judge the Colombian State or its institutions, nor demand explanations from organizations such as the judicial system. Thus, in his communication, he invites that body to respect the independence of the judicial powers.
(We recommend: They knew they were making offers and payments to witnesses: Prosecutor’s Office)
Therefore, the Court will indicate in its communication who refrains from responding to questions from the NGO, out of respect for the principle of separation of public powers, and because the high court has jurisdictional sovereignty, which is why it is not within its powers to give the type of answers and explanations required by the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
The high court will send a copy of this response, as well as the request made by the Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Judicial Independence and to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Justice. Human rights.
Other Justice notes that may interest you:
-Supersalud has issued 4 sanctions for denying abortion services
-To extinction of domain property of a woman who embezzled the Dian
-Criticisms of the law that stated that child abuse does not prescribe
JUSTICE
Twitter: @JusticiaET
[email protected]
[ad_2]
