The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Eduardo Sosa, former attorney of Santa Cruz: "If the Court endorsed the transfer of the judges, it would be snubbed if now it decides otherwise"

2020-09-21T14:34:59.566Z


Removed from his position by the Kirchners in 1995, he was never able to occupy it again, despite five court orders. Its antecedent, in the cases of Bruglia, Bertuzzi and Castelli.


Lucia Salinas

09/21/2020 - 11:19

  • Clarín.com

  • Politics

Twenty-five years after Néstor Kirchner dismissed him as Procurator of the province of Santa Cruz - while his wife Cristina held a seat in the provincial Chamber of Deputies that approved the splitting of the position and thus his dismissal - 

Eduardo Sosa

spoke with

Clarín

.

He finds similarities between his case, which was emblematic and reached the Supreme Court of Justice, and the current removal of judges Leopoldo Bruglia, Pablo Bertuzzi and Germán Castelli.

Sosa blames the political power for

"promoting a measure"

that aims to

"obstruct the processes" against the vice president.

The attorney displaced in 1995 is called Eduardo Sosa and the institutional move that made his position disappear and leave him unemployed occurred after the then head of the Santa Cruz prosecutors decided to

delve into the contract that Santa Cruz had made with a law firm outside the State structure

to negotiate the collection of a debt for oil royalties owed by the Nation.

It was about the famous 600 million dollars that the then governor Kirchner later sent abroad and whose destination was never completely clarified.

Sosa recalls that his displacement 

was promoted by Cristina Fernández in the provincial Legislature,

 who doubled the functions he had as prosecutor, created two new positions, that of fiscal agent and that of defender of the poor, absent and incapable, and left him unemployed at the do not propose it for any of them.

The Supreme Court of Justice ruled on four occasions for him to be reinstated in office, but 

the province never obeyed. 


25 years have passed since his removal, what was the institutional consequence of that measure?

The immediate consequence was that they removed me from a position that had been approved by the Chamber of Deputies.

Later, an illegality was committed from the provincial constitutional point of view, because the guarantee of immobility of a judicial official was not respected.

When the Court intervened, which indicated several that he should be reinstated in office, his mandate was not fulfilled.

The institutional consequence, then, was also that very important principles of the division of powers and constitutional guarantees were violated, and the most serious thing: what the highest authority in judicial matters had ordered was not fulfilled.

Judge Leopoldo Bruglia, one of those that Kirchnerism wants to displace.

Photos Emmanuel Fernández

That institutional damage, does it still remain?

It was left as a serious antecedent.

It is not that a judge cannot be removed, but that removal must occur for serious reasons, and not that he is wiped off the map by a mere political decision.

That path violates the division of powers.

What analysis do you make on the removal of judges Bertuzzi, Bruglia and Castelli?

Some cited their case as an antecedent that could be repeated with them.

We will have to wait for the resolution of the Court, which in 2018 endorsed that these officials work where they were fulfilling their functions until last week.

If there is an agreed that certified those transfers, the highest court will be somewhat snubbed if it decides otherwise.

The serious thing is that we are facing a circumstance driven by the Senate with an intentionality that affects judicial cases in process.

Based on your point of view, what is the institutional damage of these removals?

The visible institutional damage is that the normal functioning of the Justice is being obstructed.

This is one more of a chain of facts that is preventing that in the face of certain trials it is not possible to move forward or cannot be resolved.

We all have to be within the framework of the law, and if the power of the judges is eroded from the highest authorities of the country, that will have repercussions on society, because in what way will society be required to comply with the laws if they are not complied with by the government authorities.

Cristina Kirchner, investigated in various cases for corruption in her government, presided over the Senate session that voted to displace the judges who investigated her.

Photo Lucia Merle.

Do you see a political intent in these removals?

It is obvious that Cristina Kirchner is there, the measure comes from the Senate.

It is valid that the vice president tries to defend herself, it is her right and obligation,

the problem is when it is not possible to separate the personal facts from the institutional ones

.

Using the political, institutional tools to resolve a personal issue is not appropriate.

Due to its procedural situation, it cannot dismantle the normal exercise of judicial structures.

Do you find similarities with your case?

If these antecedents are consolidated, as happened in Santa Cruz, what is going to come is a further deterioration of the rules of coexistence, because

no one is or no one should be above the law.

If citizens have obligations and problems with justice, we must submit to them.

When I was displaced, I stressed that an example was spilled into society according to which "anything goes", where the law applies to some and not to others.

How many times has the Supreme Court of Justice ordered that you be reinstated?

It was pronounced in 1998, in 2000, 2001 (in those periods the governor was Néstor Kirchner) and also in 2009 and 2010. The last ruling was categorical, ordering the then governor Daniel Peralta that I should recover.

He pointed out that I could not reinstate myself in a position that no longer existed and referred the proposal to Congress, where it was evaluated whether the province was going to intervene or not.

In the end, nothing happened.

 Later, a case against Peralta for disobedience was sent to the provincial justice, in which he was convicted.

But the truth is that

nothing happened despite the intervention of the Court.

Did you withdraw your claim?

I did not renounce my case, but when I saw that the Court ruled and the province did not attend to the rulings, I asked that the case return to Santa Cruz, where

I began with the patrimonial claim that is still pending.

Later I had a participation in politics at one point as a candidate, but it was just that.

I am not dedicated to politics.

At present I practice as a lawyer and I retired from the Justice with the position of attorney, because it was the last I exercised for five years, until I was removed.  

Source: clarin

All news articles on 2020-09-21

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.