The Public Prosecutor before the Criminal Cassation Chamber. Javier de Luca, declined to support the indictment and the appeal of the oral trial in the case Memorandum of Understanding with Iran. He noted that his position from the outset on the file was that there was no offense in signing that agreement and, therefore, as determined by the Federal Oral Court 8 (TOF 8), Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and the rest of the defendants who were held responsible for the alleged cover-up of Iranian suspects in the AMIA attack, according to the complaint filed by the late attorney general. Alberto Nisman January 2015. “There is no need for the oral and public debate he is alleged to have, because his conduct cannot produce any result other than acquittal (…) Moreover, to do such a thing is to be in breach of our other duties , because plaintiffs are obligated not to subject persons to criminal proceedings for acts that do not constitute any crime, and to assist in the final resolution of their situation before the law and society,” De Luca wrote in a critical text accompanied by College Marcelo Colombowho demanded judgment.
After the stone decision of TOF 8, which defined the cases of dismissals, the Attorney General of Colombo, the complaints of the DAIA and the relatives of the victims of the attack submitted to the Court of Cassation a request for its annulment and for an oral trial before the Court of Cassation. Be do yes or yes. The first room, made up of Ana Maria Figueroa, Daniel Petroni and Diego Barroitavina, is involved. De Luca’s opinion is very importantHe is the one who represents the community and has the power to accuse anyone who stops pursuing the case. In any case, the court will have to analyze the allegations of the complaints, which may make new offers through Thursday. Since the Chamber must hold a hearing in which the parties participate, the decision is likely to be delayed It may not come until February. By then, in addition, there is some possibility that the composition of the Chamber will change according to how the court is reorganized when it elects a new president.
De Luca raises some questions in full agreement with TOF 8, such as that a pact can’t equate to an offense. “The signing of an international treaty between two sovereign powers cannot be the actual basis of the crime and the extreme motives or intentions that the various actors that intervened in previous negotiations, formulation, punishment, approval or endorsement may have. Its success, suitability, or error is not within the jurisdiction of the judiciary because These are political issues, they cannot be litigated (…) It is about exercising constitutional power.”
In the same way, she maintains that speculation about the supposed purpose of the cover-up is groundless. And he asserts, referring to the mechanism provided for in the memorandum: “The offender cannot be considered to have aided or obstructed the work of the authority when taking action until the fugitive accused – with valid arrest warrants – are brought to trial,” referring to the mechanism provided in the memorandum carrying Iranians suspected of the attack finally declare themselves as suspects, something that was impossible because Iran did not extradite him. Added to this is the fact that, strictly speaking, international red alerts and takeover orders have not been dropped, and none of the substance has been processed.
Another major issue that De Luca questions is the cassation chamber ruling, which included the signature Gustavo Hornos and Mariano Borinski, who ordered the memorandum file to be reopened and arranged everything to be left in the hands of the late Claudio Bonadio. Prosecutor says, beyond the public scandal resulting from The visits of these judges to Mauricio Macri in Casa Rosada and Quinta de Olivos At the time when they had to solve this issue that was of particular interest to the ex-president, there was another serious problem:Because it was already a “resolved”, because it was closed by Judge Daniel Ravicas in first instance., a decision confirmed by the Federal Chamber and then de Luca himself surrendered to the Cassation Chamber when there was no complaint. Later, what was done was to create a twin affair that was the cause that ended up in the hands of Bonadio, who even used the traitorous character. So, the Prosecutor now alerts: “The reopening of a closed case — on the pretext of new legal qualifications and a presumed need to establish unspeakable motives or purposes — generated serious constitutional damage to the initiation of res judicata and the prohibition of double criminal prosecution (…) What distorted the entire system of the legislator was the Cassation Chamber in December 2016, by reopening the case where it had already been resolved by the authority of the adjudication that the facts were not a crime (…) The contested appeal now, then, must be understood as an act of reorganization, to restore the legal order“.
For De Luca, the reasoning of his colleague Colombo, who stated that there is no new evidence to support the failure to hold a trial, is wrong, because there is no evidence to look for, since it was clear from the outset that there was no crime. “The whole accusation – from the complaint – is based on the construction of a fictitious crime Or criminal law of spirit or crime of intent. It was clearly read in several paragraphs of the complaint, some appeals, and the previous decision of the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation. The notion that it was necessary to investigate whether “this was done to help criminals evade investigations” was propagated, with the sole purpose of “raising red alerts”, when in fact the answer is in the legal texts and in the simple reading of documents added from today The first is neither saying that nor promoting it.”