Álvaro Uribe will not be investigated by the “Ñeñepolítica”, concluded the Supreme Court of Justice

Spread the love

According to the high court, there are no determinable facts that functionally involve Uribe in obtaining resources for the Duque Presidente campaign

< i class="i-share-btn twitter">

Álvaro Uribe will not be investigated by “Ñeñe”, concluded the Supreme Court of Justice

Álvaro Uribe Vélez, former president and former senator of Colombia .

The former president Álvaro Uribe Vélez will not be investigated for the so-called “Ñeñepolítica”. This was notified this Thursday by the Supreme Court of Justicewhen informing that he refrained from carrying out said procedure because, according to the opinion of the magistrate Misael Rodríguez, there were no elements to advance said process.

However, against the decision proceeds with an appeal for reconsideration, according to what is read in the document.

According to El Tiempo, the Court accepted all the arguments of the defense that argued that Claudia 'Caya ' Daza, adviser to Uribe and who was speaking with José Hernández Aponte, a criminal known as 'Ñeñe' and murdered in Brazil in 2019, was light in his statements.

El Tiempo specified that in the order of 184 pages, the high court dismissed the complaint filed in March 2020 for the alleged crimes of corruption of electoral campaign voters with prohibited sources.

”The Chamber has not been able to clear up the doubts caused by the complaint and, as the Constitution and the Law mandate, this uncertainty must be cleared up in favor of the person under investigation. Thus, the Chamber will refrain from opening an investigation against Álvaro Uribe Vélez, by virtue of the in dubio pro inmate rule, as stated in the jurisprudence of the Criminal Cassation Chamber of this corporation, ”says the decision.

Conversations between “Caya” and “Ñeñe”

In another section, clarity was also established about the conversationsbetween 'Caya' Daza and the 'Ñeñe'. According to El Tiempo, the high court pointed out that “although in the context of the legally intercepted calls to José Guillermo 'el Ñeñe' Hernández Aponte and María Claudia Daza Castro, they may raise other possible questions about their role in obtaining resources for financing the campaign of then-candidate Iván Duque for the Presidency (…) does not indicate a fact or set of concrete or determinable facts that functionally involve Uribe.”

Regarding the allegedvote buying, it was noted that “there is insufficient evidence that José Guillermo Hernández Aponte carried out a vote buying operation. Notoriously, the phone conversations of him, on which the complainants rely, do not indicate that this has occurred.”

“Nor has it been determined that Hernández Aponte has taken actions in the presidential campaign, beyond joining it. And, finally, thirdly, there is no evidence that Maria Claudia Daza had given the order to carry out the vote-buying operation that her boss allegedly gave her,” the decision stated,

Thus, on the contrary, for the Court the evidence strongly points against Daza Castro having relevant functions in the campaignor that he followed orders from his boss in Congress to participate in any way in the 2018 elections.

“According to the evidence collected, in accordance with the defense thesis, the The conduct of the accused Álvaro Uribe Vélez appears to have been totally unrelated to the financing of the 2018 presidential campaign and to any order other than the political one.” the high court noted.

Uribe and Hernández had no contact

After learning of the decision, the lawyer Jaime Lombana, representative of the former president in this case, told El Tiempo that “it was demonstrated by the evidentiary practice that Álvaro Uribe had no contact with Mr. José Guillermo Hernández Aponte and that he did not finance the Duque Presidente campaign.”

< p class="paragraph">Lombana, in the petitions, requested the file from the high court under the argument thatthe facts investigated did not exist. In addition, according to W Radio, the lawyer pointed out that the theses of the complainants have no credibility and are based on incoherent statements.