The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared inadmissible a request (for avowal) made by the llanera music singer Omar Labrador aimed at reviewing the deprivation of liberty and consequently ordering his release, since the court where his trial is taking place is allegedly paralyzed.
This decision is contained in judgment 431 drafted by Judge Maikel Moreno and supported by his colleagues in the Chamber Carmen Marisela Castro and Elsa Gómez.
Labrador was arrested by Cicpc agents on June 9, 2022 for his alleged connection to the criminal group Tren del Llano, which operates from Altagracia de Orituco (Guárico), the singer’s homeland.
As a result, Labrador is currently being tried for the alleged commission of the crimes of collaborating in criminal gangs, financing terrorism, association and money laundering.
The trial began on May 19, 2023 before the 1st Special Anti-Terrorist Court and was interrupted at the end of November of that year. For that reason, Labrador’s lawyer, Sandra Yurisma Avilez, asked the Criminal Court to take over the case so that it could: order the immediate release of the accused because more than two years have passed without a sentence and reactivate the 1st Special Anti-Terrorist Court.
In responding to these requests, the magistrates detected that “the intention underlying what is raised in the present case is that this Court issues a decision regarding the alleged illegal apprehension” of Omar Labrador and that his deprivation of liberty be reviewed, situations that are not to be exposed in an appeal.
“Having clarified the above, this Criminal Cassation Chamber observes that the petitioner cannot claim, through the institution of avocamiento, that this Chamber assume the constitutional and legal function that the jurisdictional bodies must fulfill, in accordance with the principle of the natural judge,” responded the magistrates, who stressed that the avocamiento “is not a means of procedural review of situations that must be resolved by the corresponding trial courts.”
The judges reminded Omar Labrador’s lawyer that the right to avocamiento should be exercised only in cases of serious procedural disorders or scandalous violations of the legal system that visibly harm the image of the Judiciary, public peace or democratic institutions, “circumstances that are not met in the request submitted, and that constitute the essential elements for its admissibility.”
Based on these arguments, the Criminal Chamber declared the request for referral inadmissible.
Details of the trial
· On April 18, a final hearing was held in the trial against Omar Labrador. After that date, the 1st Special Anti-Terrorist Court stopped giving its opinion, “without anyone to report on the fate of the persons deprived of liberty under the orders of that Court, without anyone to decide on the request for a transfer or anyone to decide on any requirement; in this way and in this uncertainty and flagrant and scandalous violation of due process and discriminatory and unequal treatment.”
· In his brief presented before the Criminal Chamber of the TSJ, Omar Labrador explained that the origin of his “stable position” in agricultural production is due to the success achieved in the llanero song “which gained momentum after having performed the song Because of the Cell Phone In 2002…he began investing in cattle.”
· In contrast, the 73rd national prosecutor Jean Karin López in the investigation points to Labrador as a person who bought farms in Altagracia de Orituco after the members of the Tren del Llano intimidated their owners to sell them “at the price of a skinny chicken.” In addition to his alleged connection with the then president of the Banco del Tesoro, Eneida Laya.
· In this regard, Omar Labrador’s lawyer touches on the point in the written appeal for avowal declared inadmissible. “In the Accusatory writing, the Prosecutor’s Office says that my Defendant is a ‘front man’ for the former Minister of Commerce, Citizen Eneida Alaya; who is not known to have been investigated, charged or accused; in addition to the fact that there is no relationship between her and the banks, the credits being so legitimate that my Defendant is currently being prosecuted for non-payment of credit granted by the Banco del Tesoro, this due to the fact that my defendant has been deprived of liberty for two years and obviously without producing any goods,” the lawyer responds.
