The assistant prosecutors Yeni Berenice Reynoso and Wilson Camacho have not responded to the letter sent to them by the Attorney General of the Republic, Miriam Germán Brito, where she calls on them to reflect on their pronouncements against judges and the Judiciary.
In the letter to her deputies, the magistrate points out that it is not convenient to give a hasty response to the decisions of the courts without being properly read.
«Judges and judges, as administrators of justice, are criticized in another way and considering the sanctity of their function, we cannot behave as if the Public ministry had a current and direct interest in the outcome of the case,” he advised.
Germán Brito explained to his deputies that the answers must be limited, direct and precise, in addition to not fueling the possible distrust of society in the institutions, especially contributing to parallel trials.
You may be interested in reading: Silence
“Our work in the courts and informing public opinion, but not continuing the litigation through the media, as well as in other spheres other than the courts,” he said.
This journalist tried to contact magistrate Berenice Reynoso, but it was impossible to locate her and Camacho, when asked about it, avoided the issue.
The magistrate points out that in recent days there have been situations that have placed the Attorney General’s Office and the entire Public Ministry in a state of vulnerability and, why not, with a cloth of embarrassment.
He refers that in the administration of justice everyone plays their role: jurists, judges and prosecutors and that in the case of the Public Ministry there is a greater commitment to legality and impartiality to maintain the integrity of the system, as assistants to the judges with whom They are sharing.
“Although the Public Ministry is a part of the process, it is due to other virtues and ethical commitments different from those of the defense attorney who is entirely due to his client in accordance with the law. The Public Ministry is not only due to society, it is even due to the accused, but equally to maintaining confidence in the justice system in its entirety, ”the letter details.
“Criticism of members of the Judiciary in the context of their powers is healthy, especially due to the level of legitimacy that distinguishes them from those elected by popular vote. For this reason, criticizing their decisions is the best way to ensure the transparency and integrity of judicial work. But, the criticism, sometimes strong, of the decisions of the judicial procedure cannot be understood in a criticism of the judge as a person, that is, of his reputation. Certainly, there are decisions that must be questioned, there is no better space to do so than through the appeal channels, with respect and deference, but well-founded and with a clear statement of the grievances, “the magistrate specifies in her letter.”
However, it adds, by way of example, that “an investigated magistrate filed a dispute blaming the Public Ministry for the proceedings against him, with an intervention that affects the perception of the investigations and their integrity.”
He explained that there are sentences that could be assessed as not adhering to the law, and that would not withstand an examination from the point of view of coherence and logic, but that the media are not the appropriate space to resolve these issues.
“Nobody’s right to express themselves on different issues is not questioned, especially in cases of public interest, but not at the price of compromising the integrity and objectivity of the Public Ministry, as well as ongoing investigations. The members of the Public Ministry are, above all, auxiliaries of justice and we must collaborate to maintain confidence in the institutions and contribute to their improvement, regardless of whether they disagree with the decision,” said the attorney general.
He said that “this mutual aggressiveness that now exists leads us to wonder who benefits, because the victim is evident, the system of administration of justice and society. The population and the seizure of the media to continue the process in other ways, but, against the judges, are nothing more than ammunition for those who do not want a strong and independent administration and assistance of justice”.
He appealed to the duty of decorum and respect that the members of the Public Ministry must show not only to all parties in the process and to society, but also to the judges who participate in the administration of justice.
“This is an obligation that comes from the best virtues of the members of the Public Ministry, equally from the Organic Law of the Public Ministry, the Disciplinary Regulation and the Constitution, regarding the right to due process, in its aspect of independence , presumption of innocence and effective judicial protection”, he specified.
The latest decisions by judges that have varied preventive detention for other less burdensome coercive measures, specifically in cases of administrative corruption, unleashed a barrage of criticism from the Public Ministry, represented in these processes by the assistant prosecutors Yeni Berenice Reynoso and Wilson Camacho.
