At the hearing, prosecutor William Rabanal asked the Judiciary that an arrest warrant and five months of preventive detention be issued against Betssy Chavezwho has remained asylum in the Mexican embassy since last November 3.
listen to the newsText converted to audio
Artificial intelligence
Rabanal argued before the Supreme Preparatory Investigation Court, led by the Judge Juan Carlos Checkley that, due to the proximity of the verdict of the oral trial for the failed self-coup of 2022, the preventive detention period would only be five months.
WE RECOMMEND YOU
HARVEY COLCHADO LIVE AND ELECTIONS 2026 | WITHOUT SCRIPT WITH ROSA MARÍA PALACIOS
The request was made at a hearing where the Prosecutor’s Office requests to vary the appearance with restrictions against Chávez Chino due to preventive detention. In response, Raúl Noblecilla, Bettsy Chavez’s lawyer, indicated that political asylum is safe and reported that he would leave the defense.
Why is the Prosecutor’s Office requesting preventive detention against Betssy Chávez?
On last September 3, the Constitutional Court declared the habeas corpus presented by the legal defense of Chávez Chino and ordered his immediate release. Likewise, he ordered the Judiciary to take the necessary measures to ensure the presence of the former minister in the judicial proceedings.
Supreme Judge Juan Carlos Checkley ordered the release and imposed on the accused the measure of appearance with restrictions under three rules of conduct: the obligation not to be absent from the town of Lima without authorization from the Court, to appear for biometric control every 7 days, the obligation to appear before the judicial or fiscal authority when required for any action in the process.
The former prime minister failed to comply with the last two requirements. Chávez did not attend the biometric control on three occasions: September 29, October 27 and November 3. In addition, he was absent in four sessions of the oral trial. Additionally, the prosecutor Zoraida Ávalos does not rule out that the obligation not to be absent from Lima has been breached, since there was no knowledge of his whereabouts.
“Consequently, in the opinion of this Supreme Office, preventive detention is considered appropriate in the present case, since the appearance with restrictions did not fully fulfill its purpose, it is useful and appropriate to achieve the constitutional goal of ensuring the completion of the criminal process, as well as guaranteeing the appearance of the accused and avoiding obstruction of the investigation of the truth,” Ávalos established.
