He Judiciary rejected the request of the Attorney General’s Office to lift the banking and communications secrecy of the former minister Juan José Santiváñezconcluding that the standard of reasonable suspicion required by law to intervene in fundamental rights in a criminal investigation was not established.
The decision was issued by the Supreme Court of Preparatory Investigation of the Supreme Court, which separately evaluated the requests for access to communications – in historical time mode – and financial information. In both cases, the firm maintained that the requirements lack sufficient elements of conviction.
YOU CAN SEE: Protected witness reveals that an ally of Juan José Santiváñez planned to “eliminate” journalist Karla Ramírez
Regarding the lifting of the secrecy of communications, the court indicated that the Prosecutor’s Office did not achieve the principle of indirect intervention, an essential requirement to authorize a measure of this nature. In this framework, he recalled that the right to privacy is affected only when there is a duly supported reasonable suspicion, which did not occur in this process.
In relation to bank secrecy, the court concluded that the request did not justify access to financial information of the former minister and the other investigated, which is why he declared the request unfounded. The resolution specifies that, without solid evidence, it is not appropriate to authorize interference in the economic sphere of those investigated.
Why is former minister Juan José Santiváñez being investigated?
The origin of the investigation against him former minister Juan José Santiváñez is situated in alleged irregularities related to the case known as “The Waykis in the Shadow”in which prosecutors consider that he would have tried to obstruct the effective collaboration of an investigated person to protect third parties, including Nicanor Boluarte.
The Prosecutor’s Office stated that Santiváñez would have promoted the hiring of a close lawyer—through the irregular modification of requirements for direct hiring—with the objective that Jorge Luis Ortiz Marreros does not qualify as an effective collaborator and, therefore, does not provide information that involves Boluarte or other parties involved.
This alleged favoring, according to the fiscal hypothesis, consisted of instructing or influencing the hiring of Carlos Alvizuri Marín – a lawyer without the required experience – as Ortiz Marreros’ defender, despite the fact that the procedure had to respect clear legal conditions.
