The sixth room of the Court of Appeals of Santiagoduring this Thursday, welcomed the request presented by the defense of the former president Sebastian Pinera against the judge Daniel Urrutia Labreauxto leave him out of the cause.
This after the magistrate announced previous trials that were interpreted as a pronouncement on the case that was initiated by a lawsuit against the former Head of State, within the framework of alleged crimes during the social outbreak.
The request accepted was presented by the lawyer Samuel Donoso Boassi, representative of Sebastián Piñera, who filed a formal challenge against the judge.
According to how you state it Thirdin said resolution that receives the legal action, the higher court establishes that Urrutia: “must refrain from knowing and issuing a pronouncement in the case in question.”
In the room made up of ministers Antonio Ulloa, Veronica Sabaj and the attorney member Christian Lepinit was determined that “it is evident that the individual guarantee judge has ruled on the existence of crimes.”
Along these lines, they establish that Urrutia has “expressly indicated that as of October 18, 2019 ‘there was State terrorism in Chile,’ ‘with the 400 mutilated, there was a violation of human rights’ with the use of weapons, illegally. and constantly, in a “systematic and generalized” way, detailed the resolution.
To this, he adds that the magistrate described the events that occurred in the country as “‘the greatest human rights crisis since the return to democracy in the country’ and that the actions of the Public Ministry and the Judicial Power have tried to ‘endorse and justify the repression’”.
In this way, it concludes that “it has clearly been verified that Judge Urrutia, in a generalized and categorical manner (…) has indeed committed crimes, attributing participation in said event to State agents” (quality that he had former president Sebastián Piñera Echeñique).
The foregoing was carried out because Donoso accused, in his speech, that the “magistrate has publicly stated, on the one hand, the prior conviction of trial and conviction of Carabineros who had intervened in the control of public order since the signed date, as well as well as to investigate the government (…), with its consequent animosity, resentment and contempt, evidencing its position, repeatedly, in various instances and social media.”
For that, the former president’s defense cited an article from the media Interference in which Judge Urrutia pointed out that “in Chile there are political prisoners.”
Added to this, a note from Third named the “Five keys to understand Judge Daniel Urrutia”, from where it was stated that Urrutia <
In relation to the decision of the Court of Appeals, Donoso opined that “very well founded and adjusted to law, and to the facts, the question of the judge’s impartiality is essential in any process.”
The defender maintains that the magistrate “lacks impartiality in relation to the facts and investigations related to the social outbreak, he has taken a position, he has said it publicly, it is something manifest and consequently he cannot be authorized to hear these cases.” , placed.
For his part, Judge Urrutia delivered the report with his defense regarding the facts, because the same court of appeals requested it on March 23. In the document he pointed out that the “causes for recusal are of strict law, since the general constitutional norm is the principle of inexcusability.”
Regarding the statements for which he is accused, he maintained that these opinions issued “do not refer to specific cases, but rather to serious situations that could involve State agents and that they were made under the moral obligation to point them out so that it could be done.” what is necessary to put an end to behaviors that affected the human rights of part of the population”.
Along these lines, it ensures that the judges’ statements, “in the context of the defense of democracy, are not only protected by the American Convention on Human Rights, but are also promoted by the system for the protection of human rights.”
Added to this, “at no time has he made an opinion on the pending issue and procedurally, he has not had background, evidence or testimony on the visa that would allow him to have knowledge of the cause,” he specifies.
Finally, Urrutia points out that he has no enmity, hatred or resentment with any intervener in this case, whom he does not know personally, whom he has not otherwise named in his statements, for which he requests that the case be dismissed.
