The Constitutional Court (TC) declared as “directly inadmissible” the appeal presented by the defense of the former Commander in Chief of the Army, Juan Miguel Fuente-Alba, who sought to stop the investigation against him that the visiting minister, Romy Rutherford, maintains.
According to Fuente-Alba, the appointment of the visiting minister of the Martial Court “seriously alters the due process provided for by law.” This, within the framework of Rutherford’s investigation of fraud within the military institution.
The resolution of the First Chamber of the court, which was unanimously dismissed, represents a setback for the action of the retired general, who questioned Minister Rutherford after denouncing an alleged infraction of “expressing organic and operating rules of the Military Court” .
In any case, the Constitutional Court considered that there was a lack of arguments to support the thesis of what was raised by the defense of the retired general Juan Miguel Fuente-Alba.
“Ordering to account for the request before the First Chamber of this Court, it has managed to form a conviction of its inadmissibility due to the concurrence of the grounds provided for in numerals 5 and 6 of article 84 of the Constitutional Organic Law of this Judiciary,” the document states. .
“When considering the constitutional conflict in the terms of the presentation of pages 1 and following, it is not possible to verify in the proceedings a violation of the Constitution with sufficiently structured arguments, in the terms of the provisions of article 84 No. 6 of the Law No. 17,997, Constitutional Organic of this magistracy,” he adds.
“Furthermore, it should be noted that the reproached norm does not affect the criminal process in progress against the applicant. Article 560 No. 2 of the Organic Code of Courts could be relevant in a possible procedure or instance of claim against the decision of the Supreme Court in which it was exercising the competence that said precept accorded to it, which is not the case, for which the cause contemplated in article 84, No. 5 of Law No. 17,997, organic Constitutional of this Judiciary”, he concludes.
