Disciplinary Chamber removed a magistrate from the Ramos case without reason: Supreme Court of Justice – Courts – Justice

The Supreme Court of Justice complied with the order that gave him the Disciplinary Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, who told him that he should separate Judge Ariel Augusto Torres from the process that is being followed against the former Antioquia Governor Luis Alfredo Ramos Botero. Ramos is tried for conspiracy to commit crimes for alleged links with paramilitaries.

Although the Court complied with the ruling of the Disciplinary Chamber, it called the attention of the competent authorities – which in this case would be the Constitutional Court – so that if they consider it they may review the ruling of that court, delivered on September 28, with a presentation by Julia Emma Garzón. This magistrate, as well as Pedro Sanabria, also from the Judiciary, have been questioned for having been in office for 12 years, despite being elected for a period of 8 years.

(Read also: ‘Eternal’ magistrates of the Judiciary make their positions available).

According to the Supreme Court, from the single reading of the ruling of the Disciplinary Chamber “it is evident that that institution lost its competence” to hear tutelage from the reform of the balance of powers, that is, since 2015 and, even more so, since the 2017 when there was a ruling of the Constitutional Court in that sense so that he no longer knew more resources against the Supreme Court.

In addition, affirms the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court, the decision that separated Magistrate Torres from the Ramos case was made without any evidence.

On the other hand, the high court affirms, the Disciplinary Chamber ignored that although in the Ramos case two challenges had been presented against Judge Torres, both had been denied.

(Read: List of rules for choosing trustees for a court that disciplines lawyers).

“Without any form of judgment, or motivation, explanation or reason whatsoever, he is set aside for the alleged leak of a draft ruling against Ramos Botero, for which there is no evidence to hold him responsible,” the Court said.

Also, the Court rejects that the Disciplinary Chamber order that the new magistrate to whom the Ramos case reaches present a presentation “different from the one already disclosed in the media.”

(Also: Train crash between the Judiciary and the Supreme Court in the case of Ramos?).

In your statement, The Supreme Court also cites a Constitutional Court ruling from a month ago that ordered to give way to the formation of the Judicial Discipline Commission, which must replace the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary.

The Supreme Court says that, according to that ruling, the interim situation of this Disciplinary Chamber, which was eliminated from the laws in 2015, “undermines the credibility of that institution” and “notably delegitimizes its powers.”

With a harsh pronouncement, the magistrate asks to annul the ruling

The decision of the Disciplinary Chamber was not only criticized by the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Even, Judge Ariel Augusto Torres Rojas, who was the speaker in the case of Luis Alfredo Ramos, He asked Julia Emma Garzón to annul the ruling before sending the file to the Constitutional Court.

In the first place, Torres states that the Disciplinary Chamber does not have jurisdiction to hear tutelage against the Court because, according to current laws, the only one that can review these resources is the Supreme Court itself. “Authorizing a single judge or any other judicial or administrative official, who is the guardianship judge of a Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, constitutes, then, a clear violation of the Political Charter” and of Decree 1382 of 2002.

On the other hand, the magistrate reminded them that, according to the recent ruling of the Constitutional Court, the terms of magistrates of more than 8 years are unconstitutional because, once those 8 years are over, the terms cannot be extended. Therefore, he questioned whether this decision was made by Julia Emma Garzón, who has been screwed in office for 12 years., despite that ruling of the Court.

According to the magistrate, none of these considerations were taken into account by Garzón when affirming that she had competence and legitimacy to resolve the tutelage of Luis Alfredo Ramos.

But, in addition, the magistrate says that the statements made by the ruling of the Disciplinary Chamber are “conjecture”, because that Chamber assures that Ramos’s rights to equality and due process were violated “without having minimal evidence that could serve as support” to reach that conclusion.

And it is that the magistrate Torres Rojas affirms that there is no evidence that this draft ruling had been leaked and, furthermore, that his office did so, among other things because he registered the draft ruling on March 24, 2020, and the post you made News One It is from July 12 of this year.

(Read: Judicial Discipline Commission should be formed this year).

In summary, the magistrate questions that the Disciplinary Chamber adjudicated him to be the author of an alleged leak of a presentation, without demonstrating how he arrived at that statement or why he concluded that he failed in his duty to guard that draft ruling.

But in addition, the magistrate assures that what the newscast published on July 20 does not have the capacity to affect the impartiality of the magistrate, he had registered his draft ruling four months earlier.

“Without any hesitation I must point out that by arbitrarily separating myself from the knowledge of the matter, neither more nor less is the alternative given that it is the defendant who chooses his natural judge and not the normatively pre-established one, which has unsuspected repercussions in the legal system that governs us, “he says.

And he adds that this would lead, hypothetically, to “any procedural subject by illegal means and in the face of the malleability of some foolish public servant, they could gain access to privileged information on a matter submitted to reserve in order to publish it and thus use it to thus remove of the way to the judicial official who supposedly would resolve against particular interests, and give rise to that the action is delivered to another that could offer him a favorable treatment “.

Likewise, the magistrate pointed out that what Ramos was seeking with his tutelage was to separate the judge who was handling the case against him, and he succeeded. And he said that this ruling by the Disciplinary Chamber was an “act of decisionism removed from the Constitution and the law.”

JUSTICE