The Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court analyzed the appeal filed by the Lava Jato Special Team against the decision of the National Superior Chamber that admitted the Keiko Fujimori's defense appealed and annulled her preventive detention on April 31, 2020 in the Odebrecht Contributions Case.
- Congress: Constitution Commission approves return to the bicamerality
- Keiko Fujimori: PJ will evaluate if it is possible that hearings of the Cocktail Case can be held in person
The Supreme Court will analyze in a public hearing an appeal related to the process followed against Keiko Fujimori. (Photo: Archivo El Comercio)
The Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court analyzed this Friday the cassation appeal filed by the Lava Jato Special Team against the decision of the National Superior Chamber that admitted the appeal of the defense of Keiko Fujimori and annulled his preventive detention on April 31, 2020 at the Odebrecht contributions case. Once the debate is over, the court will announce its decision on Thursday, June 23, at 08:15 in the morning.
According to the resolution accessed by El Comercio, the Supreme Court accepted one of the two requests from the Public Ministry and refused to evaluate the defense arguments of the leader of Fuerza Popular.< /p>
The appeal is a legal instrument used to resolve disputes regarding the application of a rule or develop case law doctrine.
What will be scanned?
In this case, the supreme judges consider it necessary to develop national jurisprudential doctrine “in order to establish from when the three-day period provided for in subsection 1 of article 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be computed.” Approach proposed by the prosecution.
In 2020, the Prosecutor's Office questioned that the defense of the former Fuerza Popular presidential candidate had until January 31 to appeal the 15-month prison imposed on her, however, the appeal was filed on February 3.
And it is that, for the MP, the appeal against the imprisonment of Keiko Fujimori should never have been admitted by the Superior Chamber because it was presented after the deadline. The prosecution points out that the law establishes three days (Article 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code); however, the Chamber that released the former presidential candidate considered that it would take five days (Article 405 of the Criminal Procedure Code) to accept an appeal.
“In this understanding, we conclude that the reported offenses have sufficient support to issue a substantive statement, in the terms set forth, in relation to the grounds provided for in subsections 1 and 22 of article 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so that it corresponds to declare well granted the proposed resource”, they indicated.
The Special Team had questioned the decision of the Judiciary that ordered the release of Keiko Fujimori (Photo: Andina)
In the same resolution, the Supreme Court rejected the prosecutor's request to analyze the decision of the National Superior Chamber for not complying with notifying them of the grounds for the appeal of Fujimori's defense, in addition to carrying out the hearing and issue a generic resolution.
It also rejected the arguments of Fujimori Higuchi's defense that proposed, among other issues, to define whether “the existence of a certain fact that generates assets must lead to the idea that yes or yes it is money of illicit origin that needs to be laundered” and “the suitability of the improper witness as a material object of the crime of obstruction of justice.”
In this regard, the Supreme Court ruled that there are insufficient reasons to unify contradictory interpretations regarding the configuration of the severity of the sentence as a pretrial detention budget, the standards for assessing sufficient suspicion and, on the other hand, the configuration of the crime of money laundering.
“They did not expose in a clear and timely manner the reasons that would justify the requested jurisprudential development nor did they specify the favorable incidence of the required jurisprudential development and the help that it would provide to the national judicial activity”, they concluded.
READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING HERE