[ad_1]
President Iván Duque may continue to pronounce or issue value judgments on the criminal proceedings against former president and senator Álvaro Uribe.
This was confirmed by the Council of State, which reviewed a guardianship, denied in the first instance by the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca, which He asked that the first president be ordered to abstain from pronouncing facing the cases and issuing a statement committing not to speak of the proceedings against Uribe and respecting the decisions taken in them.
(Also read: What comes in the case against former President Uribe after regaining freedom)
The process began with a tutela filed after President Duque ruled on the deprivation of Uribe’s home freedom, which, at the time, was ordered by the Investigation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, within the investigation that followed him. former senator for alleged bribery of witness and procedural fraud.
The high court, which confirmed the first instance decision, stressed that although the plaintiff argued that the rights to due process were violated and the principle of separation of powers was violated, that plaintiff He is not the victim in this case, nor is the separation of powers something that can be alleged through a guardianship.
(You may be interested: Freedom granted to Álvaro Uribe will be reviewed by another judge)
The plaintiff said that the President’s statements affected his rights to due process and equality, as well as those of all those who voted for Iván Cepeda Castro (accredited victim in the case against Uribe) and of all the victims of the processes in which Álvaro Uribe is being investigated.
In this regard, the high court stated that having voted for Cepeda does not grant the person the representation of the fundamental rights of whoever is elected, in this case Cepeda. In addition, the Council of State stated, the status of victim alleged by the plaintiff is not proven.
(Also: Judge orders to investigate publication of interception of the Uribe case)
And facing the issue of the separation of powers and the autonomy of the judiciary, the high court recalled that guardianship is planned as exceptional instrument to request the protection of fundamental rights, when such rights are violated or threatened, but the separation of powers is not a fundamental right “but a democratic constitutional principle whose protection is not automatically subject to the guardianship judge.”
“The plaintiff does not indicate any fact from which it can be deduced that he is the object of the violation or threat of a fundamental right, much less does he provide any evidence that this occurs, so that it is appropriate for the guardianship judge to intervene in order to guarantee their protection, “the high court said then, adding that because there is no violation of fundamental rights, and because the
invoked did not belong to the plaintiff, the first sentence was confirmed
instance.
Other Justice notes that may interest you:
-They are implicated in the massacre of Buenos Aires: 6 people murdered
-Recognized influencer was caught for drug trafficking in Armenia
-Fiscal and high government, summoned to JEP to explain protection of ex-Farc
JUSTICE
On twitter: @JusticiaET
[email protected]
[ad_2]
