Eduardo Barcesatconstitutional lawyer, described the process that sentenced Cristina Kirchner for the Cause of Roads as “fictional” and without sufficient evidence, from the judicial point of view. “If there was intellectual honesty, Ercolini would have asked for acquittal for lack of evidence,” he said in Fontevecchia modeby net tv and RadioProfile (FM 101.9).
What is your opinion of the foundations of the sentence against Cristina Kirchner?
It is an extended error. Already when the terms of the operative part of the judgment were known, in December, it seemed to me that there were two irresolvable contradictions.
The first is that breach of the constitutional principle of the infeasibility of double criminal prosecution, because this case had already been judged.
It started with Ercolini, he declared himself incompetent, sent her to Santa Cruz, the Federal Justice investigated and ended up dismissing. Afterwards, for a new road resource before Criminal Cassation, it was arranged to reopen it, understanding that there was evidence that had not been evaluated or proposed. That is the first contradiction, from which this cause cannot be detached.
After knowing the arguments of her conviction, Cristina Kirchner will receive an “Honoris Causa” title
The second was introduced by the ruling of the Oral Court 2, because it condemns Cristina with the figure of fraudulent administration and violation of the duties of a public official. Since the constitutional reform of the year ’94, the IThe figure of the head of the Cabinet of Ministers, who is in charge of the administration of the country’s daily life. Sign dispatches, resolutions, authorize payments.
In this case, those who intervene for payments are an autonomous entity, National Highway, with the approval, by the Chief of Staff of the payment of work certificates. Certificates that the test establishes are corresponds to contracted work and with average prices at the time the works were carried out. So, there, too, there was no substance to find illicit conduct.
But if there is someone who does not play at all in determining the reasonableness of the work certificates, their correspondence with the work carried out and the payment thereof, it is precisely the President of the Nation.
Precisely to remove this task from daily life is that the figure of the head of the Cabinet of Ministers was created. There is the paradox that the heads of the Cabinet paraded as witnesses and at no time during the investigation was it speculated that they could have some involvement and summon them as defendants
Justice for CFK?
Someone explain to me how there is going to be a fraudulent administration for those who “do not touch the button”, as the television character would say. This is elusive in the Law, it is a blunder, and it is also complete, because they say, in a section, that They have not been able to determine the amount or how the extraction of a benefit for Cristina Fernández de Kirchner operatedbased on his role as President of the Nation.
This staves off the possibility that the decision, before a rational court, will be questioned. No one is going to commit to a break in the doctrine of law and judicial processes as has been perpetrated by this Oral Court No. 2, which has obvious ties to the previous administration and even play soccer in a farm owned by the former president.
Let us bear in mind that the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets four conditions for the judicial function: suitability, impartiality, independence and competence. This ruling makes a clean sweep with those four requirements.
We will now see if there is a minimum gesture of intellectual honesty from the members of room 4 of Federal Criminal Cassation, I am referring, above all to Morín and Hornos, because they were the architects of this case already concluded in resurrecting the headquarters of the Federal Jurisdiction of the Province of Santa Cruz.
From “wrong hypothesis” to “proven fact”: the differences between judges and prosecutors in the sentencing of Cristina Kirchner
Of course, the technical defense is going to challenge all of them, but here a chapter of debate is going to be opened before entering the merits of the matter.
Lázaro Báez and public works
The grounds of the ruling present as evidence a decree that Cristina modifies to arbitrarily distribute public works, a chat from López, the official in charge of public works, there is also talk of passivity in the face of the alerts that proved this situation, preventing it from being opens an investigation, and the appointment of a man from Báez in the position of general deputy administrator of the National Directorate of road. Do you agree with those who say that none of this can be taken as proof? Do you think it’s part of the war of laws?
The first section, that of the directionality in the workI base myself in denying it on the fact that none of the other bidding contractors challenged the public works awards that it received Lazaro Baez. I think it is due to a purely territorial circumstance. The one who has his workshop in the territory, can generally quote lower than the one who has to transfer the equipment and personnel to a territory that is not the one where he is located.
So, the best proof is in the statements of calcaterraMacri’s cousin, who said that the work had reasonable prices and the won on good termsand therefore did not challenge the awards.
As for the decree, I don’t see how a decree can modify an award of works. All these steps have to be approved in Congress. The expansion of works must be approved in Congress, yes or yes, and I understand that in Congress there was no never asked to review or confront anything.
Leopoldo Moreau: “Macri made a thousand scams and is not being investigated”
With respect to the communication, this evidence was not included in the procedural order in which it should have been incorporated, and that is proof of old data. That of bring evidence from another filethat has not been offered as evidence, is an absolute breach of due criminal process.
The judge has to stick to the procedural object that has been proposed and use the evidence collected in the file, not feed on another file, unless that file, in the appropriate period, has been offered as evidence.
Another fruit of the poisonous tree, the pretense of linking everything with everything and not having done it in the opportune time and with the corresponding judicial procedure.
Let’s remember that, when it started, Ercolini declared himself incompetent, sent it to Santa Cruz, there was a ruling that declared no crime and it was final. Then room 4 of Federal Criminal Cassation of Comodoro Py there were hardly any facts that had not been investigated and it had to be reopened. The case was returned to Ercolini, who ipso facto became competent, and a great evidentiary effort was developed in the oral stage.
If there was intellectual honesty, Ercolini would have said, at the beginning of the plea, “we have tried to prove criminal responsibility but we have no elements in the file that support a reproach, we ask for acquittal.” If there were intellectual honesty, Ercolini would have asked for acquittal for lack of evidence.
Lago Escondido: Ercolini refused to be removed from the case for spying on relatives of the ARA San Juan
Alexander Gomel (AG): Listening to you, it gives the impression that, from the legal point of view, there are issues that have not been proven, but one sees from Lázaro Báez, for example, the growth of his assets by 4,100% between 2002 and 2014, during the Néstor governments and Cristina, and won all the works in the south. This draws attention to one, without being a lawyer.
If the expert witnesses, the Highway personnel themselves and those who do the audit say that the prices were correct, that the work was carried out under correct technical parameters, among other things, I I don’t have any elements to contradict that. I am not an accounting expert or a construction engineer to say that this evaluation is incorrect.
The lawyer has to stick to the file. Rhetoric external to the file should not exist for the judging of the case. If we do not abide by the file, we lose the meaning of procedural guarantees, which are not only procedural, they are from the Constitution and obey a long practice and experience in terms of evidence, the function of the prosecution and the function of the defense.
I am not involved in the file, but reading the expert reports and the provisions of the witnesses, I have to say that the crime is not proven in the file.
Money route K: Cassation reduced the sentence of Lázaro Báez and his daughters were acquitted
If a Lazaro Baez His assets grew suspiciously, something that he did not affirm or deny, in any case, what corresponds is to make a complaint about the growth of Báez’s assets, from there to claim a link with the figure of the former president, is something else. I repeat, there is the figure of the chief of staff.
The “proscription” of Cristina Kirchner
AG: Is Cristina Kirchner banned?
As long as there is no final sentence, can not speak of disqualification.
“Proscription” is a word in the language of politics, and I understand that this points to a ban. But the disqualification requires a sentence passed in authority of res judicata.
that’s why he’s right Christina when he talks about proscription, and he’s right Alberto Fernandez when it says that there is a disqualification that has not broken the principle of the presumption of constitutional innocence. Both things are correct.
The “ban” of Cristina Kirchner slipped into the 8M march before Congress
Politically, I have no doubt that a prescription is sought. The authentic interpreter of this is that unfortunate Clarín editorial that said “the bullet that did not come out and the ruling that did come out”. There it is synthesized what this fictitious judicial process attends to.
Fiction is when statements are made as if those statements correspond to reality. In the judicial file, if that is not proven, the fiction is shattered.
FM J.L.
You may also like
