The Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Court Supreme rejected the appeal of the dismissed former Attorney General of the Nation Patricia Benavides with which he has been delaying the delivery of his cell phone to the supreme prosecutor Delia Espinoza. The team is required in the framework of the investigation that is being carried out for allegedly leading a criminal organization.
The Supreme Prosecutor Delia Espinoza required the voluntary surrender of the phone on January 22 of this year. However, Benavides requested the Public Prosecutor’s Office that the information to be extracted, the dates of the communications to be analysed and the persons involved be specified. As his request was unsuccessful, he filed a protection of rights before the Judiciarywhich was declared unfounded by the judge Juan Carlos CheckleyThe former prosecutor appealed to the Criminal Chamber who presides Cesar San Martin.
The Republic accessed the Supreme Court’s resolution that dismisses the appeal Patricia BenavidesThis is because “there is no evidence of a current or consummated infringement of the rights of the accused” since, to date, the equipment has not yet been delivered.
In addition, the collegiate court determines that the request for voluntary surrender of the Supreme Prosecutor Delia Espinoza It is duly substantiated since what is sought is to verify the statements of Jaime Villanueva Regarding the Allegedly illicit communications that he would have made Benavides Vargas through two telephone numbers.
It should be noted that the request for Espinoza It is based on article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which stipulates that, in the event that the requested person does not voluntarily hand over the requested property, the prosecutor is empowered to request its seizure by Judiciary.
Secrecy of communications
The Permanent Supreme Criminal Court explains that what has been requested Prosecutor’s Office It is the voluntary surrender of the phone, but not the access to the information. For the latter, there is a procedure (prosecutor’s request, notification to the parties, hearing in case of opposition and judicial decision).
“The clarifications requested by the investigated party are not pertinent. They would be if it were a request from the prosecutor for access to communications. However, this is a request from the prosecutor for the delivery of mobile equipment which, if carried out, would only enable the registration, preservation and custody of the property related to the crime,” the resolution reads.
Delia Espinoza seeks to corroborate information about Jaime Villanueva.
Another point that was questioned Benavides in his appeal is an alleged leak of information from the Prosecutor’s Office if the equipment is handed over. However, the court says it cannot rule on a “futuristic suspicion”. “There is no way to examine what has not yet happened,” the judges say.
Finally, the judges conclude: “The invitation to freely hand over the cell phone does not cause an objective violation or certain and imminent threat to any right of the appellant, even more so if there was a refusal on her part – a procedure that falls within the scope of the exercise of the right not to cooperate, as part of the right to contest the accusation.”
