Yesterday, the Martial Court accepted -and partially- an amparo appeal presented by the defense of the former commander-in-chief of the Army, general (r) Ricardo Martinezafter being summoned to testify as accused by the visiting minister Romy Rutherford, by an edge of the Milicogate. The Court allowed Martínez to testify in his home, located in the Lo Curro neighborhood, to which Rutherford had already expressed his objections.
Last week, the visiting minister summoned the general (r) to testify at her offices for the “Tickets and Freight” and “Reserved Expenses” aspects of fraud in the Army. This triggered Martínez’s resignation as commander in chief. In addition, she also did not go to testify on the designated date.
You may also like:
In the report sent to the Court Martial, Rutherford presented the arguments why he rejected Martínez’s request to testify at his institutional residence. According to The Third PMthe minister pointed out that the current norm does not oblige her to carry out the diligence there, especially taking into account that it is a military compound.
“It should be noted that this instructor, on some occasions, but not all, has attended to take statements at homes. The latter was verified specifically with respect to two general officers, but in both cases it has been in the homes that, indeed, were those that corresponded to their private homes and that, in addition, will meet the necessary conditions of protection that were required to carry carry out the investigative diligence,” he said.
The “institutional house of the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army has a high-ranking military contingent inside for its protection, as this same instructor has been able to verify in a diligence carried out in that location,” he added.
Likewise, he indicated that taking into account that he resigned from the command in chief and that the change of command will take place on March 9, “it is not credible that said fiscal property is, to this day, still used by the accused Martínez.”
In addition, he commented that he had already refused to take two other statements in military residences. “They requested – by virtue of the same Article 246 and already mentioned – to do so at their homes that corresponded to military compounds, requests that were rejected on September 14 and 15, 2021, respectively.”
Rutherford resolved on those occasions that “it is unknown if the address indicated meets the safeguard conditions required to carry out the investigative diligence that is intended, in a case that is in a state of summary and that is directed against an active officer currently with the rank of division general, the request is refused”.
