[ad_1]
Senator Iván Cepeda has just announced that he will present actions for loss of investiture and a criminal complaint against the Chamber Representative Edward Rodríguez, of the Democratic Center.
The case is related to the investigation in the Chamber’s Indictment Commission on alleged illegal interceptions of Álvaro Uribe Vélez’s phone, within the investigation that the Supreme Court of Justice initiated for an alleged purchase of witnesses and procedural fraud.
(It may interest you: In the crosshairs, magistrate who put Álvaro Uribe on the ropes)
For Cepeda it is clear that the representative of the Democratic Center had to declare himself prevented from acting against the former judge of the Court José Luis Barceló, whom another Uribista asked to investigate for these events.
(It may interest you: The war that will prolong the case against Álvaro Uribe after his freedom)
“Edward Rodríguez of the Democratic Center, acts as an investigating representative in the process that is being followed against former magistrate José Luis Barceló in the Investigation and Indictment Commission of the House of Representatives,” recalls Cepeda.
Edward Rodríguez, investigating representative of the case of the alleged illegal interceptions against Uribe.
Democratic Center
After describing part of the audios as illegal, first, they reported the case to the Prosecutor’s Office (through the criminal lawyer Jaime Granados) and asked to investigate the CTI analyst in charge of the wiretapping.
(Also: Monsalve’s file, the ‘expara’ who unleashed the process against Uribe)
Later, one of Uribe’s bishops, Representative Ricardo Ferro, denounced José Luis Barceló, the magistrate in charge of the genesis of the investigation and who summoned the former president to the Indictment Commission.
José Luis Barceló, being a magistrate, started the investigation against Álvaro Uribe.
Claudia Rubio / EFE
Uribe’s extensions
Álvaro Uribe himself requested that Barceló be prosecuted for prevaricate per action and that he be called to an investigation, as Barceló did with him in the case of bribery of witnesses, today in the hands of the Prosecutor’s Office.
(In context: Former senator adviser captured for alleged links with the Eln)
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 (Green Party ). The first precision that those close to the case make is that not all the audios are questioned and it is not the only evidence collected against Uribe.Representative Rodríguez, who quoted Barceló as a free version, presents himself as a purebred Uribista, co-founder of the Democratic Center.
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 (advanced against the representative Nilton Córdoba), supposedly listening to the representative, had intercepted me by “mistake,” ”says Uribe.
(You may be interested: Attorney General decides in favor of Cepeda in case he confronts Uribe)
Uribe assures that despite the error, the audios were not excluded and an attempt was made to justify the error by noting that when Córdoba was asked for the telephone number he gave his number. “That was denied by Córdoba”, Uribe says.
While he was in private prison, Uribe extended the complaint against Barceló on two occasions and asked to be called for an investigation.
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 various legal provisions, which can be adapted to the crime of prevarication by action, with the sole purpose of unjustly imprisoning me ”.
What does Barceló say?
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 prevarication by action, with the sole purpose of unjustly imprisoning me ”.
(In context: Santiago Uribe case filed for financing of ‘paras’)
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: “It was an unavoidable finding, it was understood that this number was the contact to notify Córdoba about the issues that are being carried out 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.
About,
INVESTIGATIVE UNIT
[email protected]
@UinvestigativaET
