[ad_1]
After several comings and goings, this Saturday it will be decided if Álvaro Uribe Vélez is free or if he remains in house arrest. Meanwhile, the controversy continues over the request for the release of the former president by the Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office.
During his argument, the prosecutor in the case, Gabriel Jaimes, harshly criticized the proceedings of the investigation room, specifically regarding the investigation, pointing out that it was imprecise and disorderly.
“After reviewing the investigation formulated by the special investigation chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to Dr. Álvaro Uribe Vélez, it refers to certain criminal acts, but does not contain the legally relevant facts rigorously, and less in an organized and concatenated manner. that allow qualifying the development of this diligence as a clear and succinct way, ”said Jaimes.
However, in that investigation that lasted about 8 hours, and in which 280 questions were resolved, Magistrate César Reyes was able to inquire about details such as the alleged payments of the lawyer Diego Cadena, who would have made witnesses, and what would have been the participation of the ex-president in these events.
But the prosecutor went further and also criticized the lengthy decision in which the former senator’s legal situation is resolved.
“The truth is that there is no room in considering that the resolution of the legal situation, and more in this case of more than 1,500 pages, can comply with the aspects of clarity and be succinct with respect to some facts to be transmitted in a timely manner so that the recipient of the same remains linked to the process, “said the prosecutor.
It took more than 10 months of investigation that led the court to make that decision condensed into 1,500 pages, where 20,000 interceptions and the account of 43 witnesses were analyzed.
In that lengthy decision, the high court was emphatic in pointing out that Uribe would have acted as a determiner of the alleged manipulation of witnesses to change versions that had been given against him.
For Uribe’s lawyer, Jaime Granados, a fundamental piece in the case such as the investigation cannot be equated to an imputation.
“Making this equivalence would imply violating the right to equality that the citizen Álvaro Uribe Vélez has. It cannot be understood that the citizen Álvaro Uribe Vélez has been charged under the terms of Law 906 of 2004, ”said Granados.
On the other hand, the lawyer for Senator Iván Cepeda, Reynaldo Villalba, assured that the ex-president’s assurance measure must be maintained, taking into account everything that the Supreme Court acted on.
“Where do we have here to raze, to discard, to not take into account. Please, that is a problem of respect for the Constitution and the decisions of the highest authority on constitutional matters, the Supreme Court of Justice, ”Villalba said.
For some lawyers, the prosecutor’s criticism of the court’s actions would be fair.
This is what the constitutionalist Juan Manuel Charry says: “Former prosecutor Montealegre and his former vice prosecutor Perdomo intervened. I would say that there was a dose of political polarization, but the position of the Prosecutor’s Office that questioned the investigation that was conducted in the Supreme Court of Justice”.
However, at the hearing criticisms were heard regarding the position of the Prosecutor’s Office, since for some victims it would not be a neutral position.
[ad_2]
