[ad_1]
On September 18, the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Montería denied habeas corpus –a legal recourse that seeks for a person deprived of liberty to recover it immediately– when it found no irregularity in the decision to arrest Uribe. , investigated for the alleged crimes of bribery and procedural fraud.
Guerrero, in habeas corpus, argued that the assurance measure “is in violation of substantial prerogatives, since it was based on evidence collected illegally and, others, wrongly appreciated.”
However, the Superior Court “found no irregularity in the controversial decision.”
Given this, Guerrero challenged the decision. However, the court denied it, arguing that it was untimely, arguing that this type of appeal must be filed within three days of being notified. The court pointed out that the decision was on September 18 and the challenge on September 23, that is, five days later.
For this reason, the lawyer decided to insist on the challenge, this time before the Civil Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, arguing that it was at the correct times, since he presented the appeal three business days later, taking into account that on the 19th and September 20 was the weekend.
However, this court, through a presentation by magistrate Luis Armando Tolosa, dismissed these arguments and again denied the decision.
“It is clear that the promoter initiated the aforementioned remedy late,” said the Court, referring to the challenge before the Superior Court of Montería, “without receiving his allegation regarding the closure of judicial offices on Saturday and Sunday, since On the one hand, having received the notification virtually, nothing prevented him from exercising the right to challenge in the same way, as he presented the claim.
Additionally, the Court harshly questioned Guerrero for not using e-mail to send the challenge to the Court’s decision, in the same way in which it had notified him by said means. “Nothing prevented the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Montería from processing the appeal under its charge by electronic means and the applicant from exercising the prerogative to challenge by the same means and in a timely manner.”
[ad_2]
