The federal judge of Lomas de Zamora Federico Villena determined this Sunday that the National Directorate of Migration “acted within the framework of its powers” in the case of the Venezuelan cargo plane and declared “abstract” the habeas corpus presented by the crew’s lawyermade up of fourteen Venezuelans and five Iranians.
Villena considered, on page 19 of the ruling to which Télam had access, that the procedure carried out by the agency when retaining the passports of the crew members of the Boeing 747 of the company Emtrasur Venezuelan registration it was based “on the reasonable suspicion that the reason given when entering (Argentine territory) could not be the real or true one.”
Furthermore, the magistrate denied the petition for habeas corpus filed last Saturday by the crew’s lawyer, Rafael Resnick Brenner, “in relation to the Iranian citizens” and declared the action regarding the fourteen Venezuelans “abstract.”
On Saturday, Resnick Brenner had filed a habeas corpus in which he pointed out the “illegitimate decision of the national State” consisting of immobilize the Venezuelan-flagged cargo plane carrying Iranian and Venezuelan citizensto whom, the lawyer objected, “their passports were illegitimately withheld.”
Resnick Brenner appeared before the Justice on behalf of Mario Arraga Urdaneta, Victor Perez Gomez, Victoria Valdiviezo Marval, José Garcia Contretras, Cornelio Trujillo Candor, Vicente Raga Tenias, José Ramirez Martinez, Zeus Rojas Velasquez, Jesús Ladenta Oraa, Armando Marcano Estreso, Ricardo Rendon Oropeza, Albert Ginez Perez, Angel Marin Ovalles and Nelson Coello, all Venezuelans.
Similarly, he sponsored Iranians Mohammad Khosraviaragh, Gholamreza Ghasemi, Mahdi Mouseli, Saeid Vali Zadeh and Abdolbaset Mohammadi, who are part of the crew.
In the resolution, issued on a Sunday because it was a request for habeas corpus, the judge reviewed the latest events related to the arrival in the country of the Emtrasur company’s Boeing 747 Dreamliner, with Venezuelan registration YV3531, and mentioned that The aircraft “was subjected to an exhaustive control by the Airport Security Police (PSA), personnel from the General Directorate of Customs (DGA), the National Directorate of Migration (DNM) and the Argentine Federal Police (PFA).”
Regarding the control of cargo, luggage and mail contained in the plane, Villena added, inspections were carried out within the framework of the powers and functions of each force that concluded “without news.”
Regarding the crew, the magistrate continued, the National Directorate of Migrations decided to “retain the documentation” and grant a “provisional authorization to stay, which does not imply legal entry to the Argentine Republic”, while they stay in a hotel near the Ezeiza airport, until “the fuel supply of the aircraft”, which is why the plane landed on Argentine soil.
In short, the judge concluded that the government body that intervenes in the entry and exit of people to the country acted “within its powers” by framing the situation of the crew in the provisions of article 35 of law 25,871 (law of Migrations).
Said regulation establishes in one of its sections that “when there is a well-founded suspicion that the real intention that motivates the entry differs from the one manifested at the time of obtaining the visa or appearing before the migratory control; and until the same is corroborated, it will not be authorized his entry into Argentine territory and must remain in the facilities of the point of entry”.
The judge’s decision was made known this Sunday after the magistrate himself led a hearing held by Zoom hours before in which the magistrate himself, the secretary of the court Jorge Leonardo D’Amore, the director of Judicial Affairs of the Migration Directorate participated , Manuel Ignacio Sandoval, and attorney Resnick Brenner, sponsor of the crew.
After the hearing, the magistrate issued the resolution in which he rejected the lawyer’s request, not without first mentioning that according to the documentation provided “the possible commission of a crime of public action cannot be ruled out” for which he announced that he will order “the extraction of testimonies and the formation of a new case”.