[ad_1]
The lawyer for former President Álvaro Uribe, the criminal lawyer Jaime Granados, says that it is the accusatory criminal system, not the Prosecutor’s Office, which has granted all the guarantees in the case against the ex-president for alleged manipulation of witnesses. Granados makes his observations on this controversial process less than two weeks before the hearing of the request for preclusion, which will be next April 6.
What reading do you make of the actions of justice since the case of former President Álvaro Uribe, due to alleged manipulation of witnesses, left the Supreme Court?
It is a case still open, not concluded, and out of respect for judicial officials, no balance could be made; it is premature. But there is a contrast: while it was in the hands of the Supreme Court of Justice, this was a very opaque process, with a lot of controversy that does not do the administration of justice any good. Credibility goes hand in hand with transparency and with judges who act impartially and objectively. It was highly charged from a political perspective and led to the fact that, after the decision (which was not easy) by then-Senator Uribe to renounce his inauguration to be able to defend himself like any citizen, the guarantees have been seen. They have been decisions that have respected their guarantees and rights. We have a substantive difference that motivated the guardianship, but we respect the judicial decisions. Hopefully the Constitutional Court reviews it, this matter deserves clarity. (Judge who will decide on preclusion in the Uribe case denounces threats)
When you speak of guarantees, are you referring to the Prosecutor’s Office?
I am not referring only to the Prosecutor’s Office, but also to the judges. In this case, there have been actions by the guarantees control judges that have made the actions of the Prosecutor’s Office legal. What I see is that, in general, the procedures have been respected, the judges have acted within the scope of their powers in a sensible and technical way. That is the virtue of the accusatory criminal system: with all the problems it may have, at least one of them notices in a very marked way the values that are breathed, which is nourished by the independence and autonomy of the judges, their impartiality and transparency.
It seems, Dr. Granados, that all your requests have been echoed by the Prosecutor’s Office.
That seems more like an opinion than a question. To begin with, the first request we made was denied by the prosecutor Gabriel Jaimes: the freedom of Álvaro Uribe Vélez. He told me that I should ask a judge for it, and we did. We offered him to interrogate President Uribe, the Prosecutor’s Office did not consider it necessary. We have not requested estoppel, that was our aspiration, but the decision was made by the prosecutor autonomously. We have to wait to hear their reasons and arguments at the hearing. He made advance discovery of everything he investigated not only to the defense but to all parties, everything has been handled with absolute transparency. At the hearing, the evidentiary materials, the adversarial controversy of the system will be seen, and the judge 28 of knowledge of Bogotá, with absolute impartiality, will make determinations. We are seeing justice work as it should.
Does former President Uribe think the same?
The president has set an example of abiding by judicial decisions, even if he does not share them. At his most popular moment in his second presidential term, after Congress passed a referendum to ask people if he would allow a third term to run, the Constitutional Court ruled that the referendum could not pass and he said it would. complied. That is the spirit of a Democrat. What cannot be thought is that in Colombia we do not have the right to disagree with (judicial) decisions, when we have the opportunity to present appeals. President Uribe has been a militant, he does not stop saying what he thinks and does not stop using the resources to which he is entitled. In this case we have seen transparency, that is why the alarms went off when the president of the Supreme Court, without clarifying that he was doing it in his personal name and that he is impeded in this matter, gave statements that could be assumed as pressure to justice. I believe that public opinion has understood that the one of Dr. Luis Hernández Barbosa was not an adequate exit.
The Prosecutor’s Office promised a preclusion request hearing full of legal, not political, arguments. Do you think it will comply?
What we have seen so far is a deeply respectful process. In that sense, we are waiting to act at the times that correspond according to the legal times. We hope that people see the audience and understand this discussion away from political passion. The call that has been made is for the authorities to make decisions when they should, in the hearings, and that justice is not pressured. (The first statement of Fabio Valencia Cossio in the process against Álvaro Uribe)
How does the work of the Prosecutor’s Office contrast with that of the Supreme Court?
I reserve my opinion, I cannot advance the arguments that I am going to say at the hearing. What I can say is that the task of the Prosecutor’s Office is highly complementary to what the Court had done. It is no secret that there were multiple requests from the defense that the Court disregarded. The Prosecutor’s Office did the task completely and autonomously. In addition, it is a task that has not yet finished. For example, despite our insistence that the content of Juan Guillermo Monsalve’s cell phone be known, it has not yet been done, it was only authorized a week ago. What is found will have to be legalized at the hearing and these findings will surely be very useful in the discussion of the estoppel hearing. I cannot anticipate, but I must say that there were many gaps in the work of the Court. We leave the respective records in this file. And I must add that not everything has been achieved.
What does it mean?
The defense has not been able to cross-examine Juan Guillermo Monsalve, for example, the Court did not allow it, and Monsalve did not want to speak to the Prosecutor’s Office. At the moment of truth we will see how the arguments are intertwined with the evidence, so that the judge, autonomously and transparently, makes decisions.
Monsalve did not want to speak to the Prosecutor’s Office, but neither did he want to retract. Why do you think this is so?
I cannot speculate on the motivations of third parties, but there are the facts. There you can see the laughter among which he spoke with the assistant magistrate of the Court. I cross-examined him in 2012 and he told me that he had nothing against Álvaro Uribe. Here he decided to remain silent, making use of a right for those who are indicted or accused, but not for the prosecution witnesses. He could not be compelled, but we have to draw attention to that fact. We will see what impact it has on the audience. (“I have never sought to retract (on Álvaro Uribe)”: Juan Guillermo Monsalve)
The INPEC records obtained by the Prosecutor’s Office show that Diego Cadena (Uribe’s former lawyer) and Juan Guillermo Monsalve had been in contact since 2011. What can you tell us about this?
That is an issue that corresponds to the defense of Diego Cadena, not to me. But the information that I know of the process is that, before February 21 and 22, 2018, they had never seen each other. This was recognized by Cadena before the judiciary and in other statements he has given. The one who did visit Monsalve regularly was Cepeda. Part of what is being investigated in the communications is who Monsalve had contact with, this type of communication is important to know, Cepeda said that his cell phone was damaged and that is why he could not contribute his conversations with the witness Juan Monsalve. We will see if those communications can be rescued.
There is another witness in this case that draws a lot of attention: Juan Carlos “el Tuso” Sierra. Doesn’t it make you mistrust having so much faith in a man who years ago linked Santiago and Mario Uribe to crimes such as drug trafficking before the Prosecutor’s Office and the Supreme Court?
This is not about trust or mistrust of the characters, but who they can bring to the debate. Applying the rules of sound criticism determines who is believed and who is not. What you cannot do is discredit people beforehand. Any judge, investigator or lawyer must come to the evidence, see what the evidence says, analyze the witness supports. What we said is that they went to look for him in jail to offer him benefits, and the president only asked that the testimony be obtained. One to the test has to arrive objectively. We’ll see what happens at the hearing. I believe that we are going to have an opportunity, a fruitful adversarial exchange, which is the essence of the Colombian accusatory criminal system.
