[ad_1]
Although the judge considered that the process should be carried out by law 906, which is nothing else, that a delegate of the Judicial Branch is the guarantor of the actions that will be carried out during the file, it considered necessary that the high court be the one to verify its position and endorsement of it.
The judge explained that Law 600 of 2000 knows criminal behavior prior to May 1, 2005, while Law 906 of 2004 must know the crimes after that date.
“Once the constitutional jurisdiction has disappeared and taking into account that the alleged commission of the crimes were committed after 2005, the application of Law 906 of 2004 becomes valid. There is no legal reason that allows it to continue in Law 600 of 2000”, said the judge.
Although, the judge has a clear position, as well as the delegate of the Prosecutor’s Office, the Public Ministry and the bench for the defense of the former senator, until the high court does not resolve the procedural competence, a hearing in which there is a decision on whether they revoke or keep the former president deprived of liberty.
The bid on this new edge that came out of the process is due to the fact that the lawyer Reinaldo Villalba, defender of Senator Iván Cepeda, declared as a victim in the process, in the first diligence against the former senator, requested that the file continue to be supplied under Law 600 of 2000, as the Supreme Court anticipated, this in order to preserve the collected evidence, which served to dictate house by jail.
At the time, Gabriel Jaimes, prosecutor in the case, argued that the file must be supplied through the current criminal procedure, because the alleged crimes were committed during 2018. That is, the same line that the judge exposed this Tuesday.
“In ordinary justice, the temporal factor is the one that specifies the way forward. The facts are subscribed to the year 2018, following the voices of the Political Constitution, the facts determine that procedure and the applicable one is the accusatory criminal system, ”said the prosecutor in the case.
Jaimes added that it is important “to point out and emphasize that it is the time and opportunity of the occurrence of the events that determines this circumstance. By guarantee and the truth that the victims claim, the accusatory criminal system turns out to be the most suitable procedure in this case.
[ad_2]
