Kirchner prosecutor Javier De Luca withdrew the appeal and for now Boudou will not return to prison

The prosecutor of the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation Javier De Luca He abandoned the request for former Vice President Amado Boudou to return to the Ezeiza prison for the Ciccone case. De Luca did not uphold the appeal made by the prosecutor Marcelo Colombo in which he objected to the decision by which Boudou received house arrest and asked that it be revoked.

“This is so, because – as I have maintained unchanged in all similar cases – the appeal is not directed against a final judgment or a resolution comparable to it, nor does it deal with some of the exceptions that the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has understood that this requirement must be avoided, such as cases of institutional gravity or causes in which crimes against humanity are aired ”, De Luca maintained in his brief that he presented today.

Thus, the Colombo prosecutor’s appeal is null and void and therefore the Boudou home prison is signed without the possibility of revision.

The judge of the Federal Oral Court 4 Daniel Bound On April 6, he granted Boudou house arrest in the Ciccone case, for which he was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison and is appealed to the Nation’s Supreme Court of Justice.

Boudou’s defense had alleged a risk of contracting coronavirus, even though the Federal Prison Service (SPF) did not include him in the risk groups. The Judge Obligado gave him house arrest because the Covid-19 ″ disrupts practically all the guidelines of interpersonal relations. “” Since the family group of the accused’s partner resides in Mexico, and has difficulties traveling due to the illness of her father, to which, now, we could add the practically global travel ban.Boudou, in turn, has two brothers, but one resides in the interior and with the other does not maintain a relationship (which arises from the socio-environmental report). Under these conditions, the only financial and emotional support for two-year-olds turns out to be their mother, ”said the magistrate to order that Boudou continue his detention at his home in the Buenos Aires neighborhood of Barracas with an electronic ankle brace.

Who had also asked for house arrest was José María Nuñez Carmona. Boudou’s partner and friend, Nuñez Carmona, also convicted of the Ciccone case and a prisoner in Ezeiza, did not have the same fate as his proposal was rejected.

The ruling given by the domicile to Boudou was appealed by the Colombo prosecutor because he understood that it was founded “arbitrarily” and that it was an exception against other prisoners who are a risk factor for the coronavirus.

“The decision taken by VE to order a house arrest based on the impact that the Covid-19 Pandemic has had on the family group of the accused and because his partner‘ is the only economic and emotional support ” it is as arbitrary as it is impertinent, and absolutely removed from the particular circumstances of the case. It must also be said that the situation of those who are detained and have a family in charge always brings as an inevitable (and regrettable) associated consequence the affectation of their family nucleus in economic and emotional terms, beyond any virus that surrounds or not “, he maintained Colombo also objected that Obligado had not requested his opinion before deciding, which is a legal obligation.

The case came to Cassation. Like all appeals from a prosecutor, they must have the endorsement of their colleague of Cassation. But in this case De Luca did not share the criteria. He said that he did not opine on the merits of the decision – if the house arrest was good or badly granted – because before that there were reasons not to continue with the process. “My opinion remains at the door of it, I do not open any value judgment on the decision of the enforcement judge, because I warn that there are no prerequisites for the appeal in the case”he explained.

The prosecutor maintained that the house arrest “Does not satisfy the requirement of being a resolution comparable to a final judgment”, therefore it is not a subject for Cassation to intervene. He also explained that “it does not cause an irreparable tax to this Public Prosecutor’s Office” because last year the Colombo prosecutor had ruled in favor of Boudou’s release because the sentence was not firm and that this position is a “measure that is less restrictive than the freedom that a house arrest ”.

“Preventive detention did not cease, but its effectiveness was tempered by the modality of house arrest, added in the opinion.

Written by Argentina News

Corresponsal de Argentina, Encargado de seleccionar las noticias más relevantes de su interés a nuestro sitio web

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Gold firm and on the rise amid pandemic

AFIP SME Certificate: step by step guide