Friday, March 29

Ripoll recuses days before declaring two of the three members of the court that is judging him for the Zonal Plan


That two of the three members of the court that is judging the alleged irregularities of the Vega Baja Zonal Waste Plan move aside and designate another two with whom to form a new court to continue the trial. This is what the former president of the Diputación José Joaquín Ripoll has requested a few days after, as a defendant, he gives a statement at the oral hearing that for these events began on November 2 of last year and is expected to last until the end of June. Twelve other people sit next to him, including politicians, businessmen and technicians for some facts that go back to 2010 and for which penalties of up to 16 years in prison are requested.

In a letter sent on Christmas Eve to the criminal section of the Court in Elche, where this trial is taking place, the lawyer for the former vice president of the Generalitat raises the challenge of Cristina Fernández and Francisco Javier Sarabia, the latter speaker, for “lack of objective bias that would motivate, if it were not accessed, the violation of the right to a trial with due guarantees.”

Ripoll’s defense, the lawyer Bernardo del Rosal, supports his request in that both magistrates would be contaminated because they resolved the appeal of his client against the order to pass to abbreviated procedure. Del Rosal explains that the doctrine of the Constitutional Court and that of the European Court of Human Rights “prevents magistrates who have had knowledge of the investigation (…) from entering to judge that case because they have lost the guarantee of impartiality.”

Also Read  FBI supports in a hostage situation

Therefore, Del Rosal argues, “the magistrates concerned (Fernández and Sarabia) must refrain from prosecuting the present matter and the Provincial Court will have to appoint two new magistrates to form a court that is not contaminated.” And it adds that from the order with which they resolved the aforementioned appeal “it is deduced that they came into contact with the evidence and proceeded to express and assess its content with the conclusion of the existence for indictment purposes itself for the crimes of which I am accused. represented, integrating a legitimate reason to consider objectively justified the fears about a lack of impartiality of the court ”.

In anticipation of what the court may object about when the challenge is raised, given that the appeal was resolved in 2016 and since the following year the composition of the court has been known, the lawyer focuses on that “what matters is that the judicial bodies have been given the opportunity to repair the injury committed and reestablish in ordinary jurisdictional headquarters the fundamental right that is said to be violated “.

In addition to Del Rosal’s letter, the court has received another from the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office where it recalls that the Criminal Procedure Law allows not admitting incidents of challenge if they do not arise as soon as they have knowledge of the fact that motivates them.

The next 18 is expected that the trial will resume with the declaration of the accused after the court left for sentence the requests for annulment raised by the defense during the preliminary questions phase.

Also Read  Gabriel Boric presents his cabinet in Chile: 4 surprises from the country's next government


www.informacion.es

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *