[ad_1]
In a 28-page ruling, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judiciary resolved, in second instance, a tutelage with which the former Antioquia Governor Luis Alfredo Ramos Botero requested remove the case against him -for conspiracy to commit a crime for promoting illegal armed groups- from the Supreme Court magistrate Ariel Torres, from the Special Trial Chamber.
Despite the fact that in the first instance that protection had been denied, and that the Supreme Court had already negatively resolved a challenge that Ramos formulated against the magistrate, the Disciplinary Chamber granted his protection and ordered in 48 hours to separate him from the case, sort out a new speaker and prepare a new paper other than one that, according to the ex-governor, was leaked in the media.
(Read also: Togada ‘eternal’ of the Judiciary resigns the presidency, but not the position)
That decision was made against what was said by the judge of first instance, who emphasized that he did not prove the alleged leak and that there were no elements that would allow saying that this hypothetical situation occurred because of the fault of Judge Torres, The judge also said in that first decision, of August of this year, that it could not be said that there was a violation of Ramos’ due process attributable to Judge Torres.
Not only is the decision to go against determinations already made by the judge of first instance and the Supreme Court itself, but because the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary was eliminated in 2015 by the balance of powers reform and, despite This continues to operate with interim magistrates and two proprietary magistrates: Pedro Sanabria and Julia Emma Garzón de Gómez who have already exceeded their periods, which were 8, in 4 years.
Garzón was precisely the speaker of the decision that ordered to remove the case from Ariel Torres, put a new speaker and make a new presentation of the ruling in the process against Ramos.
(You may be interested in: Magistrates who have been in the Judiciary for 12 years must leave their positions)
To argue why it granted guardianship to the former Antioquia governor, the Disciplinary Chamber said that the leak of the alleged ruling that sentenced him to 19 years in prison is proven, a paper that is being studied by the Supreme Court.
He added that Ramos’s right to equality was violated because he should be treated like any other investigated and “he did not have to suffer unlawful damage knowing the draft of his sentence by a means of communication, since the Magistrate had to keep the reservation of the same guaranteeing to the investigated his right to equality and due process, regardless of whether he is a person publicly known or not “.
(Further: Court asks to investigate leak of presentation that condemned Ramos)
The Chamber brought up that already in 2018, before the Special Chamber of First Instance was formed, another submission from the Supreme Court had been leaked against Ramos for this same case, at that time the submission was from the Criminal Chamber. Likewise, the Chamber recalled that in 2019 the Constitutional Court studied a guardianship of Ramos and said that due to this leak the fundamental right to due process was violated.
Therefore, the Disciplinary Chamber held that in this case “The violation of due process by the Magistrate is evident of the Special Chamber of First Instance of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Dr. Ariel Augusto Torres Rojas, in front of the process, since the information and the presentation by him presented in the case of the actor were clearly leaked. “
Add the ruling that as Torres is “the guardian of the file” and that as this is against a person “with certain public recognition”, the magistrate had to guard the file “with extreme diligence and not allow a ruling that already had its legal and judgment analysis published by a newscast (…) thus violating the right to due process and equality of the actor, since of all the cases that the The only judge in action was that of Mr. Ramos Botero who was published in the media. “
Of all the cases that the Magistrate must have in his possession, only that of Mr. Ramos was published before the media
For these reasons, he ordered the Supreme Court magistrate Torres to be separated from the case “and his case be redistributed, guaranteeing all the rights of Mr. Ramos Botero, that is, presenting a different presentation from the one already disclosed in the media.”
Other Justice notes that may interest you
– The 14 witnesses who will testify in the trial of lawyer Diego Cadena
– Forced retirement age does not apply to Banco de la República manager
– After the return of ‘Jorge 40’, 5 former bosses ‘paras’ remain in the US
JUSTICE
On twitter: @JusticiaET
[email protected]
[ad_2]
