In the last hours, the defense of the former president Alvaro Uribe Velez asked the Prosecutor’s Office and the Chamber’s Indictment Commission to order the immediate inspection of the messages of WhatsApp of former president Juan Manuel Santos Calderón.
(We invite you to read: Uribe denounces Santos and Magistrate Linares for calls about his case)
The request is part of the first technical evidence that will be requested within the complaints filed against Santos (in the Prosecutor’s Office) and the magistrate of the Constitutional Court Alexander linares (in the camera).
As TIME revealed, Jaime Lombana and Jaime GranadosUribe’s attorneys requested that an investigation be made into whether the former president and Nobel laureate exercised undue influence on one or more magistrates of the high court, within the process of reviewing a legal action involving his client.
(You may be interested: The confidential profile that the Prosecutor’s Office made of the witness against Uribe)
The criminal prosecutors refer to the protection filed by Uribe’s defense after the investigation against him – for alleged bribery of witnesses and procedural fraud – went from the Supreme Court to the Prosecutor’s Office, after his resignation from the Senate.
With this resource, his lawyer Granados I wanted to overturn the decision, of November 6, 2020, in which the Fourth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit equated the investigation to which Uribe was submitted in Court to the category of accused.
Although the guardianship was denied by the Superior Court of Bogotá, the Constitutional Court selected it for review. When they were close to making a decision, the media revealed that Santos called several magistrates.
Now, what Granados and Lombana are looking for is to determine whether that conduct was carried out to lead the magistrates to adopt a unfavorable decision against Uribe and for his own benefit or in favor of a third person.
(Also: Why does a key witness in the Uribe case not want to speak to the Prosecutor’s Office?)
As indicated in the complaints, the crimes of omission of complaint and influence peddling, among others.
The first behavior follows from the fact that Magistrate Linares pointed out in the media that he knew that some of his colleagues had been called by Santos, who, incidentally, was his nominator.
No representative of the administration of justice can allow influence or pressure on his judicial decisions. Much less if it was his hierarchical superior, immediate boss.
And what they question is that the magistrate had not denounced that fact prior to the vote in the Constitutional Court.
“No representative of the administration of justice can allow influence or pressure in his judicial decisions. Much less if it was his hierarchical superior, immediate boss ”, they explain in the complaint revealed by this newspaper.
(Also: Who is Mercedes Arroyave, the lost witness in the Uribe case?)
And they add that justice must be independent, objective and impartial, free from external pressure “and must not allow a declared enemy, such as Santos, to suggest, pressure or direct the direction of a vote by a magistrate”.
In fact, after ensuring that Linares and Santos stained the dignity of justice and must be criminally investigated for this, they wondered: what would have happened if it was Álvaro Uribe Vélez who had called a magistrate?
Election of Alejandro Linares as magistrate @CConstitutional it was the result of meritocracy. It will be a worthy guardian of legality.
– Juan Manuel Santos (@JuanManSantos) November 4, 2015
The other magistrates
Another of the technical evidence that they request to establish what happened is that Through a court order, Linares’s cell phone is examined “To determine how many calls the former president Santos received from his friend.”
But Linares would not be the only magistrate investigated, in case the complaints are successful.
EL TIEMPO established that in the writings of Lombana and Granados they mention other magistrates by name inside the case.
(You may be interested: Deyanira, the woman who can cross Á. Uribe’s audience)
Indeed, this newspaper established that they annexed press records stating that initially Judge Gloria Stella Ortiz I was going to vote against the presentation of the rapporteur magistrate (Linares); that is, in favor of the protection action filed by Granados.
“However, the magistrate Ortiz would have changed his position and finally voted against granting the tutela action”Reads the complaint against Santos, which is almost identical to that of Linares.
In fact, they claim that the media, such as El Espectador “realized that the situation was so serious that one of the jurists received intimidating messages asking him to change his voting intention with the threat that if he did not, there would be repercussions ”.
Why not Gaviria?
In the end, Linares’ presentation won with a vote of 5 to 4.
Indeed, on November 10, 2021, The Constitutional Court denied the protection instituted by Uribe against the order issued by the Fourth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with knowledge function.
Magistrates Alejandro Linares, Gloria Ortiz, José Fernando Reyes, Cristina Pardo and Diana Fajardo they voted against granting the tutela action. And the magistrates Alberto Rojas, Jorge Ibáñez, Paola Meneses and José Antonio Lizarazo they voted in favor
(Also: The letters of the prosecutor Jaimes to request the preclusion of the Uribe case)
In this context, it was known that the former president César Gaviria had also called some magistrates. Among those contacted by the head of the Liberal Party would be Rojas and Lizarazo.
However, when EL TIEMPO asked why it had not been included in the complaint, the answer was blunt: “Gaviria was not the nominator or elector of any of those magistrates. Juan Manuel Santos, yes ”.
“Gaviria was not the nominator or elector of any of those magistrates. Juan Manuel Santos, yes “
In this regard, Gaviria has indicated that he had the right to comment on the matter and that did not call to pressure anyone.
In the case of Santos, Uribe’s defense speaks of an aggravating factor known as prevaluation.
Legally, that figure applies when pressure is exerted on someone, taking advantage of a situation or advantageous position of superiority.
(Also: The war behind the decision enlisted in the case against Uribe)
Former President Santos is expected to address the matter in the coming days and that both the Prosecutor’s Office and the Accusation Commission accept or reject the technical evidence that he is requesting the defense of former President Uribe.
In fact, it is not ruled out that the Constitutional Court also make a statement on the subject, which will undoubtedly weigh within the investigation that is being pursued against former President Uribe in the ordinary justice system.
The 4 hours of Uribe
It is also expected that the next March 10thWhen the process against Uribe is resumed, the former president makes mention of this episode.
He himself requested that when the victims are finished listening and their lawyers intervene, he have a space of at least 4 hours to discuss your case.
(See here all the articles of the Investigative Unit of EL TIEMPO)
Uribe’s environment has been struck by the fact that the audience is summoned just to three days before the congressional elections and coalition consultations, who seek to define a candidate for the presidential elections in May 2022.
We would like to say thanks to the writer of this write-up for this amazing material
Álvaro Uribe asks the Prosecutor’s Office for inspection of the WhatsApp of Juan Manuel Santos