The Supreme Court ratifies closing the files onto accusations against Felix Bautista
The 2nd Chamber revoked the opening of a case, made by judge Victor Castellanos
Federico Méndez
SANTO DOMINGO. The 2nd Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) ratified the closure of 2 cases ordered by the National Director at of Persecution of Administrative Corruption (PEPCA) of major investigations regarding alleged acts of corruption against the Senator Felix Bautista. The decision was taken yesterday by judges Miriam German Brito, presiding, Frank Soto Sanchez, Alejandro Moscoso Segarra and Juan Hirohito Reyes.
The tribunal accepted an appeal filed by the defense lawyers, Abel Rodriguez del Orbe, Juan Antonio Delgado, Chanel Liranzo and Ramon Emilio Nuñez, against sentence Number 82, issued by the judge of Special Instruction of the Privileged Jurisdiction, Victor José Castellanos, which revoked the provisional closing of the file and ordered the Justice Department to reopen the investigation for alleged acts of corruption against Bautista.
The tribunal revoked the decision and ordered maintaining the provisional closing of the file decreed by the DPCA, which was objected to by the Dominican Alliance against Corruption (Adocco).
This sentence of the 2nd Chamber of the SCJ, which contains the reserved or dissenting vote of its presiding magistrate, Miriam German Brito, says that it is correct to accept the appeal against the decision by Judge Castellanos.
They say that Adocco did not file their case by the jurisdictional route foreseen by the legislator, "and consequently, did not have the status to object to said sentence," in view of the fact that they have not filed a complaint, so that they were not authorized for such things and their right to object to the provisional closure ordered by the then director of the DPCA, Hotoniel Bonilla, has remained subject to this.
They say that the principal of access to justice pretends to discard segregations and obstacles that make difficult the possibility of the subjects to accede to the system of justice, and to the solution that this offers regarding their conflict.
Nevertheless, the SCJ says that in order for this guarantee to come about without shaking the foundations of judicial security, the intervention of the parties within the process should be submitted to the tools that the legislator has placed for their use.
In the decision, they say that the rule that regulated the participation of Adocco "was clear and foreseeable."
The case of CONA
The SCJ considered that no jurisdictional instance, without going beyond its area of competence, compromising its impartiality, could prohibit a representative of the Justice Department to rule in one or another sense according to his own understanding, "as has been intended by the defense in the intervened resources."
They rejected the pretensions of the National Convergence of Lawyers (CONA) and Yuniol Ramirez Ferreras and the representatives of the Justice Department.
They held that the hearing of the objection permitted the participation of the Justice Department without legitimizing the representatives, which presented conclusions or sentenced in the hearing, "erroneously changing their position.
They said that the principal of indivisibility conceives that the Justice Department is an institution represented on all levels, without losing its unity or objectivity operating as a total or as a part.
A dissenting vote
Judge Miriam German Brito said that she felt that the tribunal complied with its obligation of providing an effective judicial remedy, producing a sentence based on the aspects which were submitted.
"Magistrate Attorney General of the Republic, finding in favor of the objectors of his own case file, does this by means of a writ where what he intends is not very clear." She indicates that the judges are an impartial 3rd party in the process.
The tribunal accepted an appeal filed by the defense lawyers, Abel Rodriguez del Orbe, Juan Antonio Delgado, Chanel Liranzo and Ramon Emilio Nuñez, against sentence Number 82, issued by the judge of Special Instruction of the Privileged Jurisdiction, Victor José Castellanos, which revoked the provisional closing of the file and ordered the Justice Department to reopen the investigation for alleged acts of corruption against Bautista.
The tribunal revoked the decision and ordered maintaining the provisional closing of the file decreed by the DPCA, which was objected to by the Dominican Alliance against Corruption (Adocco).
This sentence of the 2nd Chamber of the SCJ, which contains the reserved or dissenting vote of its presiding magistrate, Miriam German Brito, says that it is correct to accept the appeal against the decision by Judge Castellanos.
They say that Adocco did not file their case by the jurisdictional route foreseen by the legislator, "and consequently, did not have the status to object to said sentence," in view of the fact that they have not filed a complaint, so that they were not authorized for such things and their right to object to the provisional closure ordered by the then director of the DPCA, Hotoniel Bonilla, has remained subject to this.
They say that the principal of access to justice pretends to discard segregations and obstacles that make difficult the possibility of the subjects to accede to the system of justice, and to the solution that this offers regarding their conflict.
Nevertheless, the SCJ says that in order for this guarantee to come about without shaking the foundations of judicial security, the intervention of the parties within the process should be submitted to the tools that the legislator has placed for their use.
In the decision, they say that the rule that regulated the participation of Adocco "was clear and foreseeable."
The case of CONA
The SCJ considered that no jurisdictional instance, without going beyond its area of competence, compromising its impartiality, could prohibit a representative of the Justice Department to rule in one or another sense according to his own understanding, "as has been intended by the defense in the intervened resources."
They rejected the pretensions of the National Convergence of Lawyers (CONA) and Yuniol Ramirez Ferreras and the representatives of the Justice Department.
They held that the hearing of the objection permitted the participation of the Justice Department without legitimizing the representatives, which presented conclusions or sentenced in the hearing, "erroneously changing their position.
They said that the principal of indivisibility conceives that the Justice Department is an institution represented on all levels, without losing its unity or objectivity operating as a total or as a part.
A dissenting vote
Judge Miriam German Brito said that she felt that the tribunal complied with its obligation of providing an effective judicial remedy, producing a sentence based on the aspects which were submitted.
"Magistrate Attorney General of the Republic, finding in favor of the objectors of his own case file, does this by means of a writ where what he intends is not very clear." She indicates that the judges are an impartial 3rd party in the process.
Federico Méndez
Continuar con Google