The particular defenders of the refferent Mapuche Facundo Jones Huala failed to remove federal judge Gustavo Villanueva, who will intervene in the extradition trial of the Mapuche leader requested by the State of Chile.
Ezequiel Andreani, who subrogates the federal court of Zapala, rejected the challenge once morest Villanueva, to intervene in the Jones Huala extradition proceedings. The resolution was dictated in the last hours.
Although the lawyer Eduardo Soares, who assists, along with his colleague Gustavo Franquet, Jones Huala, announced that they will appeal Andreani’s ruling.
Andreani recalled that when appearing in court on March 13, the defenders of Jones Huala requested the removal of Villanueva, who subrogates the federal court of Bariloche.
what is the sentence
They stated that Jones Huala was required by the Republic of Chile to finish serving the sentence imposed on him in December 2018 by the Valdivia Oral Criminal Court, whichHe sentenced him to 6 years in prison as the perpetrator of the fire in an inhabited house and also gave him another sentence of 3 years and one day in prison for illegal possession of weapons.
The trial court computed in favor of Jones Huala the 1,178 days of preventive detention that he served in Argentina and Chile. For this reason, on June 26 of next year the penalty expires.
The defenders pointed out that Judge Villanueva “by ordering the extradition at the time” for Jones Huala to be tried, “advance opinion”. Soares and Franquet argued that this reason would require the judge to refrain from continuing to intervene in this file. And they cited the sentence that Villanueva handed down on March 5, 2018, when he declared the alienation of Jones Huala from the neighboring country admissible.
The Supreme Court confirmed Villanueva’s sentence in August 2018 and in September of that year Jones Huala was extradited to Chile, where he was tried and convicted. On January 21 of last year, the Temuco Court of Appeals granted conditional release to the Mapuche leader, which claims the existence of the Mapuche Ancestral Resistance (RAM). But the Chilean Public Prosecutor’s Office challenged that decision and the Supreme Court of the neighboring country revoked the benefit in mid-February 2022. When they wanted to arrest him, Jones Huala had already fled.
On January 30, police from Río Negro arrested him at an address in El Bolsón and since the beginning of last February he has been detained in the federal prison of Esquel.
Basis of rejection
Andreani mentioned in the resolution to which BLACK RIVER that Villanueva had rejected last March 14 to depart and cited the precedent “Llerena” of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Villanueva pointed out that during his interventions prior to the summons to trial “In no case was it ruled on whether or not the extradition request was appropriate, in such a way that -objectively- a fear or suspicion of partiality might be alleged.”
Andreani held that “Gustavo Villanueva is right and, therefore, his departure from the proceedings must be repelled.” “It is that the recusal under analysis was attempted within the framework of an extradition procedure, which by its nature is restrictive and autonomous,” he said.
“In effect, it is described as restrictive because it does not constitute a process of investigation or debate on the cause that motivated it, but limited to complying with what the special law mandates in compliance with a purpose of collaboration with the requesting nations”emphasized the deputy magistrate.
He recalled that it is an institute that was defined by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation as “an act of international legal assistance whose foundation rests on the common interest of all States that the delinquents are judged and, eventually, punished by the country whose jurisdiction corresponds to the knowledge of the delinquent acts”.
He stressed that it is an autonomous procedure “because this request for estrangement was made -now- to order for Jones Huala to serve the sentence that remains to be served in the requesting Nation, aspect that was not verified, naturally, when Dr. Villanueva intervened in the framework of the FGR 11466/2017 case, precisely because Jones Huala was required to be tried there.”
He stressed that Villanueva expressed in his report “sufficient reasons, for which he understands that he is not involved in any of the causes nor is it affected or conditioned in any way by having intervened in a previous extradition proceeding in relation to the same extraditable”.
“In short, the fact that Dr. Villanueva has intervened in the previous extradition process related to the requested does not prevent you from being able to impartially resolve here what you think corresponds in relation to this new requirement, especially when -as I said- both requests obey various assumptions (the previous one for Jones Huala to be tried in the Republic of Chile and the current one for the fulfillment of the sentence imposed by the courts of that Nation)”, concluded Andreani in the resolution .
To comment on this note you must have your digital access.
Subscribe to add your opinion!
Subscribe
