The Attorney General’s Office supported the request to preclude the process against Álvaro Uribe for procedural fraud and bribery of witnesses.
The delegate of the Public Ministry divided his intervention into two cases and argued his position regarding each of them.
(You may be interested in: The three men linked to millionaire scams who will be extradited).
Last week, the prosecutor in the case, Jorge Enrique Sanjuán Gálvez, began the argumentation of eight elements that he put on the table to make the decision, which, although not binding, is highly relevant and sheds light on what may come in the case.
He recalled that the Prosecutor’s Office requested the preclusion for three reasons: the atypicality of the conduct, the absence of intervention by the person under investigation, and the impossibility of refuting the presumption of innocence of the accused.
The prosecutor Sanjuán Gálvez indicated that he will only refer to events after February 18, 2018, which refer to the specific process that is being investigated and for which preclusion is requested.
He indicated that the Prosecutor’s Office incurred an omission in requesting the preclusion for facts and not for crimes and that this has legal consequences.
(You may be interested in: They capture two Foreign Ministry officials who falsified documents).
He argued that although several guardianships have been ruled in this case, this in no way compromises the presumption of innocence ofthe accused.
The official indicated that the Attorney General’s Office will pronounce only in the terms of the law and in an impartial manner without any particular interest so that “a fair and legal decision is reached.”
He indicated that a logical probability of the facts is needed for the Prosecutor’s Office can proceed to the accusation against Uribe Vélez. He then referred to the allegations of pressure to change the version of the witness Juan Guillermo Monsalve through the lawyer Diego Cadena.
He added that there is a high probability that Monsalve was not part of the paramilitary groups and, therefore, their indications could not be given as true. And that after being sentenced to a long sentence, the witness began to testify in order to be able to benefit from the alternative sentences of transitional justice.
He concluded that given the high possibility that the witness was not part of of the Self-Defense Forces, the same doubt remains about the veracity of their accusations against former President Uribe.
He also described Monsalve as a suspicious witness.
And he emphasized that given the fact that Monsalve was not He is aware of what he said, since he was not a member of the Self-Defense Forces, consequently he could not be a witness to the accusations and even less could he be the object of the crime of bribing a witness.
He specified that with this scenario there is no probability of achieve progress in the investigation.
He added that the services required by Uribe Vélez from Diego Cadena, at least at the beginning, were not as a lawyer but as an investigator to explore the statements that were being made in prisons.<br
Likewise He pointed out that it was Diego Cadena who looked for Uribe, which in his opinion distorts the version of the victims of the case that Uribe “looked for a lawyer to commit irregularities. And that at the time, February 2017, there was no evidence to doubt Cadena’s honesty or transparency.
He also indicated that former President Uribe did not contact Enrique Pardo Hasche either, who was in the same prison as Monsalve, but that it was Hasche himself who sought to have the witness meet with lawyers close to the former president.<br
For the prosecutor in the case, the one who showed interest in Monsalve’s retraction was Pardo Hasche.
After the intervention of the Attorney General’s Office, it will be the turn of the defense of former President Uribe and himself.
At the end of this intervention, everything will be ready for the judge in the case to make a decision on the preclusion of the process.
Read other Justice news
A pre-agreement was signed between the Prosecutor’s Office and Jhonier Leal for double homicide
They deny guardianship to victims who asked to stop the extradition of ‘Otoniel’
‘Picolín’ versus ‘Tweety’, the legal battle that Warner lost