2023-07-02 12:00:00
Congresswoman Gladys Echaíz (Popular Renovation) closed two legal books to answer our call. As a good connoisseur of legal issues, she says, she seeks to update herself. She does not want to lose the habit, especially because tomorrow, Monday, July 3, a pronouncement will be issued by the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court on Zoraida Ávalos Rivera. She maintains her distance from her on the subject, but comments on the apparent meddling of the magistrates. In this interview, she also testifies regarding other points, such as the norm that limits the term of effective collaboration.
Hasn’t effective collaboration turned into ineffective collaboration?
That is an answer that the justice operators themselves can give, but seen from the outside, what we know is that the collaborators have given statements that later denied it and that has called into question all the work carried out by the Public Ministry. Because if it’s a false statement, what is corroborated? It was commented in some newspapers that even to request provisional arrests, these statements from uncorroborated witnesses were used. That was an irregularity that has to do with the ethics and morals of the prosecutor. And I imagine that it has served for the institution itself to follow up.
Do you consider that the limits of 8 months and 4 additional months that are established in the bill for effective collaboration are justified?
It is considered to be a reasonable period. In any case, the prosecutors can make the invocations before a judge for an extraordinary extension that the code allows when it comes to a complex issue.
How do you respond to criticism coming from senior officials such as the Minister of Justice?
That surely they have not exercised the profession and that they do not know the procedure. Perhaps they do not remember that in the past this type of special procedures was applied in the time of terrorism where the investigation barely lasted 15 days, where we were even successful in the investigations.
In all cases?
Well, the terrorism complaints almost all had a positive result. The complaint made by the prosecutor with what he had collected during the preliminary investigation generally led to an arrest warrant. If we did not provide proof that convinced the judge, they were released.
But this effective collaboration tool, over time, has been denatured, right?
This was born with the purpose that the members of an organization collaborate to identify the leaders. The ringleaders did not have this benefit, but later, in 2013, this tool was modified to extend the benefit to the ringleaders. No one said anything there. Nobody tore their clothes.
Is that why you now consider a questioning of the rule that sets limits incongruous?
It seems to me that now that we are talking regarding deadlines. They complain so much and it’s hard for me to understand. Seems like a lack of consistency to me.
Under all this logic, hasn’t effective collaboration become a tool for impunity?
In some cases, it can be.
Some investigated lead a relaxed life being effective applicants or collaborators such as Mrs. Sada Goray…
She is a collaborator because she has provided some data, but other things are being discovered. And there’s nothing wrong with her. The laws are given in light of the events of the facts of the mutations that are taking place in life…
I want to insist: there are people linked to high degrees of corruption, who are even located in other countries and have no restrictions. Can a person submit to collaboration and be quickly cleared of all crimes?
What has been said has to be verified. Once verified, if it is useful and has served to dismantle organizations, locate money laundering places, etc., the contribution will be important. But there has to be a part of the collaborator, a commitment not to influence behavior like that once more. (…) It is the magistrates themselves who must present a project to gradually adjust, refine the laws that serve as a tool for them to work with, because the procedural rules are those tools to facilitate the exercise of the function.
Could the Prosecutor’s procedure then be questioned in some cases?
There may be some prosecutors. It may be wrong to use the norm, but that does not lead us to question the institution.
Do you think it is correct that the prosecutor Marita Barreto has traveled to Punta Cana to question Sada Goray?
The moment in which he has done so, suddenly, justifies the search for evidence. If you are looking for information and if that means having to make an effort, then very well. But if that had happened now it would have another connotation. Each thing must be analyzed in its moment and the time in which it occurred. Now, how important is what you received? That’s another topic…
Sure, but what investigated with that level of alleged corruption is given the privilege of having the prosecutor herself go looking for him?
Well, there have been situations, for example, in the Lava Jato case. There are precedents.
But do you see it wrong?
I don’t know, but you have to see the behind the scenes of an investigation that is inside it and how important the data can be in order to move forward.
And if the data is not important?
Well, that’s another story.
What opinion do you have regarding the meeting of the Plenary Chamber that is going to be held on Monday and how much do you think it can influence what Congress has decided on the Zoraida Ávalos case?
I have an opinion from a technical point of view. I have certain questions, but I prefer to reserve them until they finish asking their questions. But I am only going to tell you one thing: having them, a posteriori, entrusted with carrying out an investigation, acting in this nature means putting up an obstacle because they will have to excuse themselves, refrain from intervening and here they have expressed a political interest in the issue. Now, from the point of analysis of the independence and autonomy (of the Judiciary), there we will see what they are going to say because there is objective, subjective independence, which we can debate in due course. Now, there are at least eight people who might not intervene in that process (to Zoraida Ávalos).
Do you see an outbreak of conflict of powers possible?
No, Congress is not in conflict with anyone. It has carried out a procedure that, in the course of it, no one questioned and that once the process was completed an agreement was reached. It seems that sensitivities have been touched where everyone has felt offended, they have felt damaged, they have felt reached by that decision, I don’t know… And I don’t know because I don’t know the content (of the pronouncement) and I mean the Full Room. Now, on the other hand, there is the issue that the Judiciary, through its president or former president, did not participate in these government councils where public policies of the Executive and Legislative branches were debated, from which it must be very distant and at some point? Didn’t they cry out for it? And today they talk regarding “functional independence and that Congress cannot rule on jurisdictional criteria”, when the prosecutor (alluding to Ávalos) is not part of the jurisdiction. The prosecutor investigates a pre-intervention of the court. He is controlled by the judge. The decisions of prosecutors do not constitute res judicata or even res judicata. So what are we talking regarding?
Could it be understood as an interference on the part of the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court in the case of Zoraida Ávalos once morest Congress?
It might mean an advance of opinion in a cause that they are going to know.
In other words, would there be an interference?
In other words, there would be a violation of due process, of the principle of impartiality, of the principle of independence that they apparently want to defend. I don’t think that will happen because it would be very serious.
What do you think of those who would have promoted this in the Plenary Chamber, which would be San Martín and a group of supreme judges?
It sure was a passionate moment. There are times when we sometimes get carried away by some feelings and have a reactive behavior, but a magistrate must always be pondered and serene and evaluate things in all his dimension and with the height that corresponds to him.
What is evidenced by that?
The request can be a reactive fact, nothing more emotional and reactive. What is certain and evident is that they have questioned the autonomy and impartiality that a judge must have in a process.
On the other hand, how do you see the possible alliance between Fuerza Popular and free Peru?
I don’t know if there are possible alliances or not. They may have talked in order to have a table with the participation of all the groups and thus to be able to advance in the work or to be able to jointly analyze the problems that Congress currently has or perhaps draw up some guidelines in favor of the institution. If that’s the vision, why mightn’t there be an alliance? Another thing is the political pacts, but if it is an institutional end, just an institutional policy that is different, I would not see it as questionable.
Could your bench be part of this eventual alliance?
We haven’t met yet. We have been told that the meeting to discuss this issue will be following the week of representation, that is, on Saturday the 15th or Monday the 17th.
If your caucus decides that you will be a candidate for the presidency of the Board of Directors, will you refuse?
We would have to talk to find out if there are strong reasons to do it, but there is nothing yet.
Let’s say you might work for a country-agenda, right?
The other day I said it: when it comes to the country, nobody refuses.
Many see you as a suitable candidate for the position, how do you feel?
Just like another congresswoman.
1688320752
#Gladys #Echaíz #questioned #autonomy #impartiality #judge #POLICY
