[ad_1]
In a 245-page document addressed to Magistrate Gerson Chaverra and signed by the tenth-delegated prosecutor before the Supreme Court of Justice, Carlos Mejía, he noted:
“I ask the Decision Chamber to maintain the sentence in the terms and conditions established in the contested ruling, in light of the evidence that in that process no errors or ignorance of guarantees were incurred.”
Based on that, the official asked that “fully confirm the sentence delivered by the Criminal Cassation Chamber on July 16, 2014 ″, as read in the concept published in its entirety by W Radio.
That means that he asks him to maintain those established by said ruling, which was contested only five days ago by Arias’s defense.
According to the former minister’s 460-page petition, that sentence should be overturned because “The Court relied on a bias in the examination of the evidence, taking into account simple suspicions, imaginations, conjectures, suspicions or speculations”, Snail News reviewed.
However, among the arguments of the Prosecutor’s Office is precisely the analysis of this evidence, since it indicates that the Court analyzed in detail the evidence to analyze the guilt of Arias in the corruption case related to the Agro Ingreso Seguro (AIS) subsidies, during the government of Álvaro Uribe.
Two of those reasons were:
one. The distinguished position that the former minister occupies in society was accredited, since it was found that he has a degree of education higher than the average of citizens, that he has held relevant public positions allowing him to achieve a political position that is recognized in the national territory. In addition to this, the Chamber concluded that due to his position as Minister of Agriculture and the authority he exercised in the portfolio he knew and was aware of the contractual processes that were held for the execution of the AIS program.
2. The high court made an analysis on the criminal co-participation with which Andrés Felipe Arias Leiva, the officials under his charge, the IICA officials and the beneficiaries had acted, thus demonstrating the second most punishable circumstance questioned by the former minister.
[ad_2]
