The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the request to paralyze the trial initiated against three people classified as members of the Oscar de Jesús del Llano criminal gang, a cell of the Tren del Llano.
That decision was reflected in ruling 560 written by Judge Elsa Gómez and supported by her colleagues Carmen Marisela Castro and Maikel Moreno.
There it is reported that last May three members of a cell associated with the Tren del Llano criminal structure, identified as Sergio de Jesús Carmona, Héctor Nicolás Soto Araujo and María Esmeralda Martínez, were arrested in Valle de la Pascua, according to a report from the National Anti-Extortion Command and Kidnapping (Conas) No. 34.
These subjects were reported by a person who was being charged a large sum in dollars in exchange for not making an attempt on their life.
After being arrested, they were charged with accomplices to extortion and conspiracy. Currently the process continues in Guárico Trial Court 3, Valle de la Pascua extension. And in the middle of that phase, the lawyer José Cristóbal Álvarez, who said he acted as a “trusted lawyer” for Soto Araujo, one of the three defendants, asked the Criminal Chamber to suspend the trial being followed against his client “by virtue of of the major irregularities detected in the present case.”
When analyzing such an approach, the magistrates reminded lawyer Álvarez that the mechanism of acknowledgment cannot be used to determine the criminal responsibility of the accused “since this will be the result of the evidentiary debate before the court in trial functions that corresponds to knowledge.” of the cause.
They also responded that he should have acted wisely before filing the request for certification and exhausting all options before other instances to correct what he considers to be irregularities.
“It is observed that the applicant refers to the occurrence of alleged irregularities whose approach is generic (…) without explaining in detail the circumstances that reliably demonstrate the existence of actions contrary to law, which merit the admission of the petition brought to the attention of the Chamber.” ‘, the magistrates recriminated.
Likewise, they point out that Álvarez shows “a total lack of knowledge about the legitimacy of a defense attorney,” whose status is subject to certain formalities, including the legal oath.
In that sense, the Chamber reminded the lawyer that the granting of a special power, such as the one extended by the accused Araujo, does not entitle him to file a summons before the highest court in the country. And for this reason they declared the request inadmissible due to the lack of legitimacy of the lawyer.
