Álvaro Uribe: this is the former president’s request for release – Investigative Unit

“Jaime Enrique Granados, identified as he appears at the bottom of my signature, in my capacity as defender of former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez, I respectfully attend his Honorable Office in order to request the adaptation of the investigation to the procedure established in Law 906 of 2004, as well as the immediate release of my son “.

This is how the petition that the defense of former President Uribe has just filed with the prosecutor Francisco Barbosa’s office begins to immediately remove his house arrest, after the Supreme Court transferred his process -for alleged bribery in criminal proceedings and procedural fraud- to the accusing body.

(We invite you to read: Court has just notified Uribe’s defense that the process was passed to the Prosecutor’s Office)

EL TIEMPO exclusively knew the document that is based on the fact that the process in the Supreme Court was carried out under Law 600. But, when passing to the Prosecutor’s Office, it is covered by Law 906 of 2004, which means that only a judge of guarantees can order the assurance measure.

Even to support his request, Granados cites the case of ‘Jesús Santrich’ (read below).

“Preventive detention, in laws 600 of 2000 and 906 of 2004, is
governed by different institutions and procedures that cannot be homologated
automatically, corresponding to the prevalence of freedom in
in case you have to switch from one system to the other for reasons of
competition”, says the criminal.

(Also:‘Free Uribe’: the campaign in the US that Cepeda rejects)

If Granados’ thesis is successful, his client would be free next Friday or sooner.

“Without a doubt, there are several reasons why, the new procedural reality, imposes that the deprivation of liberty, ordered by the Special Examining Chamber on August 3, 2020, cannot continue to be valid, within the framework of of a process of law 906 of 2004 “, says Granados.

(We invite you to read:This is the Court’s investigation of Álvaro Uribe for the El Aro massacre)

And it points out, first, that the investigation cannot be equated to the formulation of an accusation. Thus, it would be in a scenario of imposition of insurance measure without the existence formulation of imputation.

In this regard, he points out that this scenario “It does not keep any logic, within the scope of Law 906 of 2004, since an assurance measure is not requested or imposed without
there is an imputation of charges “.

And remember that in the model provided in Law 906 of 2004 (which would apply to the Uribe case at the Prosecutor’s Office), for the purposes of decreeing preventive detention, it is governed by the principle of judicial reserve.

This means that this decision only corresponds to a Guarantee Control Judge.

Santrich case

To support the petition, Granados even refers to the case of the former FARC chief, alias Jesús Santrich, released by order of the Court.

“A clear reference turns out to be what was decided by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its order of May 29, 2019, AP1989-2019, when resolving the competition challenge presented by the defense of Seuxis Pausias Hernández Solarte, known as ‘Jesús Santrich’.

(You may be interested in: The hidden story of Schifano, the narcolator of ‘Santrich’)

It recalls that in that case, said corporation determined that the Prosecutor’s Office and the 16th Criminal Court for Control of Guarantees of Bogotá were not competent to hear the action, ordering that the action be sent to the Special Investigation Chamber, as well as the immediate release of Santrict.

(Also: Cepeda says that the Court must appoint an ad hoc prosecutor for the Uribe case)

And he explains: “One of the arguments of the Criminal Cassation Chamber at the time of ordering freedom, It was that the institutions that governed the deprivation of liberty, in Law 906 of 2004, were totally unrelated to the processing of Law 600 of 2000 and, therefore, it could not be guaranteed that the decisions adopted in a different procedural scheme would be upheld “.

And he closes his request by insisting that “it is evident that in the face of this new procedural reality, the preventive detention ordered by the Special Investigation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has no place, from the constitutional point of view,
in a process that must be governed by Law 906 of 2004, being necessary, in guarantee of the rights of Dr. Álvaro Uribe Vélez, to correct the action, ordering his freedom “.

INVESTIGATIVE UNIT
[email protected]
@UinvestigativaET