Judge says District Attorney of the National District violated due process in the case of Diaz Rua
He said that the failure to comply requires as a sanction the annulment of the case
Federico Méndez
SANTO DOMINGO. The interim judge of the Fourth Court of Instruction of the National District, Leomar Cruz Quezada, noted that the actions of the District Attorney of the National District against the former minister of Public Works, Victor Diaz Rua, violated his right to a defense and due process.
The magistrate states his position in his resolution Number 08 - 2014, of some 117 pages, in which he bases his arguments of fact and law to declare the case completely null and void along with each one of the acts which up to the date make up the process of investigation regarding the former official and the alleged corruption.
Consequently, he ordered the dismissal of the activities of the District Attorney Yeni Berenice Reynoso.
He specified that according to the elements and documents supplied by the parties there is no trustworthy proof that Diaz Rua had received a formal notification of all of the elements of the investigation carried out against him, previous to or at the moment of the imposition of the measure consisting of the embargo of funds.
The tribunal feels that the freeze on the funds constitutes a real coercive measure, against which the Secretary of Finances of the Dominican Liberation Party (PLD) could not defend himself.
He said that the sanction resulting from the irregular activity consisting in the failure of the duty to inform the defendant as established in article 95 of the Penal Process Code is the annulment of the acts.
He suggests that previous to the imposition of the request of resolution of the petitions, of 4 April, and after having evaluated the documents that make up the process, "there does not exist any proof of notification of the defendant of the complaints, the elements of proof, or the circumstances relating to the process of investigation followed against citizen Victor Diaz Rua."
The magistrate said that he feels that there is no procedure registered which coincides with the date of the freezing of funds or before this, "the reason for which it is not been able to prove that in the present case they have fulfilled what is established in article 95 of the Penal Process Code."
He considered that they cannot pretend to clean up a defective procedural act by the prosecutors by means of later notifications to the request to annul the process.
"The actions or means of proof obtained as a result of the violation of the right of defense consisting in the absence of a formal communication of the events and circumstances that make up the investigation as well as the complaints that form part of the process, cannot be cured or corrected and as a consequence the procedural sanction of these is the annulment."
The judge indicates that the duty to inform can never be placed as an obligation on the defendant or the person investigated and eight criminal process.
The right to be informed
Judge Cruz Quezada said that there exists a right to be informed, with the person who pretends to pursue or investigate the one who has the obligation or the duty to do it in front of the person investigated or pursued. He cited as an example the content and the sections of articles 19 and 95 of the Penal Process Code and article 14.3 letter a, of the Pact of the Political and Civil Rights.
The magistrate states his position in his resolution Number 08 - 2014, of some 117 pages, in which he bases his arguments of fact and law to declare the case completely null and void along with each one of the acts which up to the date make up the process of investigation regarding the former official and the alleged corruption.
Consequently, he ordered the dismissal of the activities of the District Attorney Yeni Berenice Reynoso.
He specified that according to the elements and documents supplied by the parties there is no trustworthy proof that Diaz Rua had received a formal notification of all of the elements of the investigation carried out against him, previous to or at the moment of the imposition of the measure consisting of the embargo of funds.
The tribunal feels that the freeze on the funds constitutes a real coercive measure, against which the Secretary of Finances of the Dominican Liberation Party (PLD) could not defend himself.
He said that the sanction resulting from the irregular activity consisting in the failure of the duty to inform the defendant as established in article 95 of the Penal Process Code is the annulment of the acts.
He suggests that previous to the imposition of the request of resolution of the petitions, of 4 April, and after having evaluated the documents that make up the process, "there does not exist any proof of notification of the defendant of the complaints, the elements of proof, or the circumstances relating to the process of investigation followed against citizen Victor Diaz Rua."
The magistrate said that he feels that there is no procedure registered which coincides with the date of the freezing of funds or before this, "the reason for which it is not been able to prove that in the present case they have fulfilled what is established in article 95 of the Penal Process Code."
He considered that they cannot pretend to clean up a defective procedural act by the prosecutors by means of later notifications to the request to annul the process.
"The actions or means of proof obtained as a result of the violation of the right of defense consisting in the absence of a formal communication of the events and circumstances that make up the investigation as well as the complaints that form part of the process, cannot be cured or corrected and as a consequence the procedural sanction of these is the annulment."
The judge indicates that the duty to inform can never be placed as an obligation on the defendant or the person investigated and eight criminal process.
The right to be informed
Judge Cruz Quezada said that there exists a right to be informed, with the person who pretends to pursue or investigate the one who has the obligation or the duty to do it in front of the person investigated or pursued. He cited as an example the content and the sections of articles 19 and 95 of the Penal Process Code and article 14.3 letter a, of the Pact of the Political and Civil Rights.
Federico Méndez
Continuar con Google