[ad_1]
On the morning of this Monday, the letter that – dated September 7, 2020 – was sent by Attorney General Francisco Barbosa Delgado and Deputy Prosecutor Martha Janeth Mancera to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, Judge Jorge Luis Quiros Guzmán.
In the six-page letter they explain to the robed why They are not prevented from advancing the investigation against the former president and former senator Álvaro Uribe Vélez, addressing the challenge made by Senator Iván Cepeda.
Cepeda presented an order to the Supreme Court of Justice – September 4, 2020 – and according to the letter, the senator’s lawyer had to present the Prosecutor and the Deputy Attorney General “request for a declaration of impediment before forwarding the text to the Court “, then, according to his interpretation, “in the car was skipped the procedure and was wrongly filed. “
(We suggest you read: Former President Santos comes out in defense of prosecutor Barbosa)
The letter states that the grounds for impediment and challenge are exhaustive and have not been proven. These grounds are previously defined in article 56 of Law 906 of 2004 and “they do not admit flexible, extensive or analogical interpretations, such as those proposed by Iván Cepeda’s lawyer“, they point out in the letter.
Reasons that allude:
There are six reasons given by the heads of the prosecuting body to the magistrate to justify that they are not prevented from advancing the investigation –which comes from the Court– against former senator Uribe Vélez.
In a first point, they point out that there is no link between the challenged officials (Barbosa and Mancera) and Álvaro Uribe Vélez.
In this sense, the arguments and situations presented by Iván Cepeda’s lawyer are no more than conjectures and personal disqualifications without any legal basis, which are supported by an unreasonable starting point: that the Attorney General of the Nation and / or his delegates they will suffer undue external pressure and that they will act in accordance with them, but not in law and in accordance with duly proven facts.
(In context: Prosecutor and Court spoke about what the delivery of the Uribe process would be like)
In a second point, they argue that the assertion that “the prosecutor Barbosa has not shown to act independently with respect to the President of the Republic (…) or his relatives is unsupported” because the President of the Republic is not the defendant in this investigation.
In a third point, they say that the argument to challenge the Deputy Attorney General of the Nation and “the delegated prosecutors” is not valid because the statement against the Deputy Prosecutor was based on the fact that she is linked to the entity in a charge of free appointment and removal. “This is false and does not know that Dr. Martha Janeth Mancera is a career prosecutor, with more than 27 years of experience in the institution and that she enjoys job stability in the entity.”
(We suggest you read: The battle that was unleashed in the United States by the image of Uribme)
In a fourth point, it is stated that the generic challenge proposed by Iván Cepeda’s lawyer against “the delegated prosecutors” is unreasonable.
According to this position, every prosecutor in the country would lack impartiality for the simple circumstance of belonging to the Prosecutor’s Office General of the Nation. It takes for granted the impediment of all the officials of the Office of the Prosecutor, without even knowing who they are or under what grounds they would be involved.
The fifth aspect in which they maintain that they are not disqualified from investigating Uribe refers to the fact that, contrary to the law, to indicate that there are grounds for recusal against the Attorney General and the Deputy Prosecutor because a prosecutor of the entity, Daniel Hernández, acts within the proceeding against Mr. Diego Cadena. This official is not the one challenged on this occasion.
And the last point indicates that the request for the appointment of a “Prosecutor to this”Is inappropriate. They assure that this request lacks any legal basis, given that it is not provided for in the Law or the Constitution or – contrary to what is held – in any binding normative standard of the constitutionality block. Read the full letter here:
JUSTICE
On twitter: @JusticiaET
[ad_2]
