2024-10-31 18:30:00
Chamberlain Eduardo Farah annulled the decision to sack the president on Thursday, October 31 Javier Mileyin the investigation of the case in which he called “shrouded” and “living according to the pattern.” Jorge Fontevchiafounder Editor’s introduction. The judge also made a rulingDeparture Judge Sebastian Ramos reason.
According to the ruling, the Registrar of the First Chamber of the Court of Appeal insisted that “the resolution is invalid because it is untimely (premature), confusing and general”.
Therefore, the magistrate judge ruled on the appeal of the complaint, deposing Federal Judge Sebastian Ramos on the grounds that “There are expected opinions” and ordered another magistrate to handle the case. “The appeal’s decision shows an argumentative vacuum, is deprived of its meaning, is dogmatic and therefore arbitrary and therefore invalid,” said the waitress, who considered it “premature”.
Dictators don’t like this
The practice of professional and critical journalism is a fundamental pillar of democracy. That’s why it bothers those who think they have the truth.
Ramos sacks Millay for lack of action There is no crime His defender raised this point, thereby “avoiding the procedural instance in which the law requires the defendant himself to explain what he has to say in the matter, as to the content and meaning he wants to give to each of his expressions, as to the context in which he wants to express it .
Farah pointed out that the lawsuit was filed due to remarks made by Mire on April 8, 2024, when he was already president. ’s “Multiverse Fantino” program, he called the businessman “Living on an agenda” and “being surrounded”.
Milley’s defense insisted the expressions were “public interest“This is why no crime was committed due to the ‘public figure’ status of the media businessman complained in this case.
However, before dismissing, Judge Ramos emphasized the “implications of jurisprudence involving protection.” Privacy and press freedomespecially when this may ultimately create international liability”.
“At the appropriate procedural moment, this analysis might conclude: They are all matters of “public interest” Therefore there is no penalty from art. 110, Criminal Law. But in order to be valid, it must take into account all the above aspects,” the judge concluded by invalidating it.
PERFIL’s lawyer Marcelino Cornejo, who worked on the case together with lawyer Fernando Bosch, explained to this outlet that the case will now be re-subrogated to the court by Julian Ercolini, and if this is true, The case is likely to end with a trial.
First, Cornejo emphasized that the Chamber of Commerce’s ruling “went beyond” common practice and directly annulled Ramos’s “arbitrary” ruling, arguing that “it is not enough to accuse a person of being a public figure or involving a matter of public interest.” As with any abstract problem, it has to be something more concrete.
Likewise, he stressed that the judge “considered the arguments in our appeal, and he added the resolution of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which stipulates that public officials enjoy freedom of expression but have obligations and diligence than the elderly. When he said ‘serial vandals’ , a public official is a person with great credibility and therefore greater responsibility.
Finally, the lawyer explained that the process will now continue with hearings where the president will have the opportunity to “withdraw,” although he believes this is unlikely to happen. “I have a feeling they wouldn’t want to withdraw it, for example, when they say ‘encapsulation’, their defense says it’s about ‘people receiving official guidance’ and not bribery, which is what it actually says,” he said. concluded.
Full verdict:
Jingdong/
1730400286
#revoke #ruling #sack #President #Javier #Milley #Jorge #Fontevchia #overshadowed
**Interview with Legal Analyst Clara Mendoza on the Recent Ruling in Javier Milei‘s Case**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Clara. We’ve seen significant developments regarding President Javier Milei’s legal challenges. Could you clarify what led to Chamberlain Eduardo Farah’s decision to annul the president’s dismissal?
**Clara Mendoza:** Absolutely, and thank you for having me. The annulment came after Judge Farah found that the initial ruling by Federal Judge Sebastián Ramos was fundamentally flawed. He characterized Ramos’s decision as “premature” and lacking clear arguments, essentially stating that it was confusing and insufficiently justified.
**Editor:** That’s an interesting take. The ruling highlights the importance of procedural correctness. Can you elaborate on what that means in the context of this case?
**Clara Mendoza:** Certainly. In legal proceedings, especially when dealing with high-profile figures like President Milei, it’s crucial that the process is followed meticulously. Farah’s ruling emphasized that Ramos’s decision did not properly entertain the necessary legal standards, and more importantly, it failed to allow for a thorough consideration of the context and implications of Milei’s remarks, which were made in a public forum.
**Editor:** Speaking of remarks, could you shed light on what specifically Milei said that triggered this legal issue?
**Clara Mendoza:** Sure! The controversy stems from comments made by Milei in an interview on April 8, 2024, where he described a businessman as “living on an agenda” and “being surrounded.” The allegations hinged on whether these comments constituted defamation or if they were simply expressions of opinion relevant to public interest, which is a significant defense in such cases.
**Editor:** And the court found in favor of Milei’s defense concerning public interest. What does that imply for similar cases in the future?
**Clara Mendoza:** This ruling sets a precedent, affirming that public figures are subject to a different standard when it comes to defamation. The judge underscored that expressions regarding public figures, particularly when made in public discourse, should be protected to preserve freedom of speech and press. This recognition is crucial for democratic dialogue and could influence how future cases involving media and public figures are approached.
**Editor:** Very insightful! Lastly, how do you see the broader implications of this ruling on the relationship between media, public figures, and the judiciary in Argentina?
**Clara Mendoza:** This ruling could represent a pivotal moment in the way judicial decisions influence media freedom and public discourse in Argentina. It shines a light on the protection of journalistic expressions, indicating that the courts might lean towards safeguarding these principles over punitive actions against public figures for statements made during their public engagements. It reinforces the critical balance between free speech and accountability, a cornerstone of democratic societies.
**Editor:** Thank you, Clara, for your expert analysis on this important legal matter. We appreciate your insights.
**Clara Mendoza:** Thank you for having me! I always enjoy discussing the intricate dynamics of law and its impact on society.
