What is your reading of what was evaluated by the Special Electoral Jury of Lima Este in the case of Congressman Roberto Sánchez?
It is an obvious fact that would constitute the crime of embezzlement. And what strikes me is that so far the Prosecutor’s Office has not opened the investigation ex officio. You do not need, let’s say, for the Special Electoral Jury to determine that there is an infraction, because the criminis news, what the media has reported, is that a crime has been committed, which is the use of Congressional resources in proselytizing activities, with which the prosecutor on duty at that time, upon learning that news, should have already opened a preliminary investigation to gather all the necessary evidence and finally channel this into a criminal process against those who are responsible. What the jury does, let’s say, is not necessary to open a criminal investigation. The criminal investigation can be opened ex officio without the need for the jury to determine that there was a violation of neutrality, because here what we are talking about, rather than neutrality, is the commission of a crime.
Does this constitute a violation of neutrality?
Yes, it is definitely set up. Do you know what the problem is? That in accordance with the jury regulations on publicity and neutrality and according to the Organic Law of Elections, the fact that the jury determines that there is an infraction at this point only implies that the jury refers it to the Prosecutor’s Office. He is not going to give you a fine, he is only going to say that he committed the infraction and he is going to send the actions to the Comptroller’s Office and the Public Ministry. What the jury says is sterile in the sense that it does not apply any sanction. The sanction will come through criminal proceedings when the Prosecutor’s Office formalizes the complaint and later a judge determines criminal responsibility. Unfortunately, the jury does not have the tools at this time to sanction violations of neutrality. The only thing it does is send copies to the Prosecutor’s Office.
What is the maximum penalty that the jury could impose? Articles 40 and 32 speak of public reprimand.
This sanction works with a candidate who registers before the Special Electoral Jury. For this reason, he said that the jury’s legal framework does not help it to sanction this type of behavior that violates neutrality. At most, what you are doing is sending copies to the Public Ministry. Only when Roberto Sánchez registers as a candidate and, as a candidate, incurs a violation of neutrality, can they apply that article that talks about the reprimand and then the fine, but at the moment in which this violation has been committed where he has carried a “laptop” with Congress workers, he is not yet officially a candidate because he has not registered before the jury and you could not apply that sanction to him.
Everything would then remain in the hands of the Prosecutor’s Office to investigate Sánchez for embezzlement of use.
The Prosecutor’s Office, first, to formalize the investigation and, then, the Judiciary to impose criminal sanctions if it finds criminal responsibility for the use of public resources for purposes other than those for which they are intended. You cannot use personnel during working hours, which we all pay with our taxes, to do tasks unrelated to Congress, such as proselytizing. They don’t get paid for that.
