January 17, 2023, 23:00 PM
January 17, 2023, 23:00 PM
The defense lawyers of former president Jeanine Áñez question the decision of the ordinary justice that decided to include the former president in an ordinary case linked to the deaths of Senkata. For Áñez’s defense, the The Plurinational Assembly must proceed through a trial of responsibilities based on her status as former president.
“There are three instances, two State bodies, two powers that recognize that the trial of the Senkata case is a trial of responsibilities according to article 184 of the Political Constitution of the State”, questioned the lawyer, Alain de Canedo, a member of the team of advisers that the former president has.
This afternoon, through a message published by the Minister of Justice, Iván Lima, a new accusation against Áñez was made known. On this occasion, it will be a court in El Alto who will assume, through an ordinary trial, the case for the deaths in Senkata.
In July 2021, The families of the victims presented the accusatory proposal against the former president before the Attorney General’s Office. This instance sent a query to the Constitutional Court to resolve whether the case corresponded to a trial of privilege.
In August, the prosecutor’s office itself presented four accusatory proposals against Áñez in parliament. In September 2021 the mixed commission of Plural Justice began the treatment of the four accusations, one of them is for the Senkata case.
Alain de Canedo links the haste of the Government with the imminent arrival of the monitoring table that the GIEI implemented to comply with the recommendations on the events of 2019.
In the opinion of the defense attorney, the inclusion of Áñez in an ordinary trial obeys a political decision that it has no legal basis and that could cause an international legal conflict later. He insists that the rights of the former president are openly ignored.
“Surely will lead to this process being annulled, because the guilt or innocence of the former president is not being discussed, but the constitutionality of a mandate. The rules of prosecution cannot be changed at the whim of any authority, there is ample case law on this,” warned the lawyer.
