Víctor García Toma: "The president had conduct that puts the national territory at stake"

For the former magistrate of the Constitutional Court (TC), Victor Garcia Takesthe Statements by President Pedro Castillo on CNN about the possibility of an outlet to the sea for Bolivia constitute a constitutional infraction, but not the commission of a crime.

— Why can a statement constitute a crime of treason?

— I do not share that thesis. But the complaint is based on the fact that there are international agreements and policies between the leftist parties in Latin America., whose vision is the territorial dimension of the continent, where the presence of former president Evo Morales is. So, I think that statement by the president does constitute a violation of the Constitution.

— Do you not consider that the figure of treason against the homeland is forced? Since that declaration was passed, the president has not made any move to hand over territory to Bolivia.

— I am not in favor of there being crime, but I understand that, in any case, the president has had conduct that puts the national territory at stake because the statements he gave met a general rejection.

— In the habeas corpus hearing in the Constitutional Court, a magistrate asks the Congress attorney why an opinion constitutes a crime and he did not know what to answer.

— There was an error in your nomination, that very poor intervention affects your prestige, but nothing more.

Pedro Castillo would have incurred in a constitutional infraction, according to the former magistrate of the TC, Víctor García Toma. Photo: Presidency

— You point out that violations of the Constitution were committed, but the report of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Accusations of Congress also recommends accusing the president of the crime of treason.

— The report says that there is a preliminary trial and impeachment. I do not agree with the preliminary hearing because the steps consistent with that statement have not been taken, but what refers to the declaration cannot be considered an act of ignorance because the president must know what his powers are. And these are established in articles 118, 32 and 54 of the Constitution.

— In other words, for you, there is a violation of the Constitution, but there is no crime.

— They are two different facts. One thing is a crime and another is an infringement of the Constitution. In the case of violation of the Constitution, It is the responsibility of the public official to exercise his position with full knowledge of the regulations that establishes its powers and the president, in that statement, was ignorant of what the Constitution says.

— The report recommends disqualifying the president for five years from public service. Do you agree with that penalty?

— I agree that a violation of the Constitution has been committed. I do not have any doubt. I am aware that the president was ignorant on the subject, but precisely, in this particular case.

— Is this sanction of disqualification not going against the right to the presumption of the innocence of the president?

— What happens is that in the case of an offence, basically what is required is conviction and that the congressmen come to establish that the president has made statements to the contrary what the Constitution states.

Source link