Claudio Savoia
05/10/2020 - 15:29
Clarín.com
Politics
In another twist from his customary public silence, and after the call to human rights organizations for this week, the president of the Supreme Court of Justice, Carlos Rosenkrantz, responded harshly to the accusations against him dumped in the draft political judgment that Kirchnerism is pushing against him.
"For some time I have been the target of a persistent smear campaign in different publications and by different personalities. They falsely attribute misconduct, irregularities and crimes of different nature to me," begins the defense of the judge, to which
Clarín
agreed
.
In the midst of the controversy over the acceptance by the Court of the
per saltum
that will decide the fate of judges Leopoldo Bruglia, Pablo Bertuzzi and Germán Castelli, displaced at the request of Cristina Kirhcner in the Senate, the ruling party charged against Rosenkrantz: the president Alberto Fernández had criticized him two weeks ago, and the subsequent attacks by other officials were joined by a request for impeachment signed by Deputy K Vanesa Siley.
"I have been accused before the Federal Court 4 of
having no less than 71 accounts abroad, all in my name, to collect bribes in numerous tax havens,"
the judge begins to enumerate in his journalistic statement.
"The accusation is not only
false
, as I stated in a presentation that I made in March of this year in said court, but completely absurd."
Rosenkrantz also reviews that before he had two other criminal charges: one for the crime of prevaricato for having signed the ruling "Muiña" (in which the applicability of the "2x1" law was discussed) and another for being a participant during the time in who practiced the profession of lawyer in the fraudulent bankruptcy of a company that had a franchise for a hamburger restaurant in Pinamar and Villa Gesell.
"Both were dismissed by Judge Rafecas," he clarifies.
"Now a pro-government deputy presented a request for
impeachment
in which she considers the cause of poor performance that would enable the opening of the procedure in the Chamber of Deputies to investigate those facts and, where appropriate, move forward with my dismissal," says the judge.
"The accusations are completely unfounded. I have not breached any functional duty
,
"
he defends himself.
"The deputy considers that I incurred the cause of poor performance provided for in article 53 of the National Constitution for having signed my votes in the cases 'Muiña' and 'Batalla' (2x1). She affirms that I violated the constitutionality block that requires prosecute and condemn crimes against humanity and also the social consensus. It maintains that I seriously frustrated the exercise of the rights and guarantees of the Constitution by having favored and many times assured the impunity of those responsible for State terrorism through sentences contrary to current law 'He says that I behaved with' ostensible disregard for public sensitivity and conscience 'for having maintained my position on 2x1 after the 2017 citizen protests and the enactment of Law 27,362. He also maintains that I demonstrated a' clear misunderstanding of the law current normative ', because my vote in' Battle 'does not note that crimes against humanity are inamnerable or liable to pardon or with
mutation of grief, "continues Rosenkrantz.
And he argues: "It is curious that I am now accused of the sentence of 'Muiña', which was handed down three years ago and that two other judges also signed. It is also striking that I am accused of not giving in to the protests in the streets In any case, the truth is that, contrary to what the complainant deputy affirms, the legal guidelines defended in my decisions on the "2x1" find their support in the Constitution, in inter-American law and international human rights law. The arguments - which are in the judgments - express my deep conviction that
the Constitution establishes criminal guarantees in favor of the accused, including those who perpetrated the most horrendous crimes
in the history of our country. "
"And I want to say, in particular, that the accusation that 'I did not notice' that crimes against humanity are not subject to amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence reveals that the legislator has not even read my vote. I expressly explained in the recitals 20 and 21 of my dissent in 'Battle' why the calculation of the sentence discussed in that case, as I see it, is not at all comparable to an amnesty, a pardon or a commutation of sentence ".
Rosenkrantz then proceeds to his defense on the alleged delay in the resolution of the "Blaquier" case, a file that is pending and in which for the deputy Siley there is a
"flagrant obstruction of the jurisdictional work"
, because supposedly the case is long ago in his vocals.
"In addition," he says, "he questions me for
'the explicit links with the powerful Blaquier family', because my wife is a member of the Board of Directors of the NGO Cimientos
together with a nephew of the accused."
"The information on the movement of the file that inspired this accusation
is totally erroneous
although, curiously, the correct information is available on the web," replies the president of the Court.
"As it emerges from the Judicial Management System (LEX 100), the file entered the Supreme Court on June 5, 2015, that is, more than a year before my incorporation as Minister on August 22, 2016. On the other hand On the other hand, I had the case under study on two occasions: from May 2, 2019 to July 11, 2019 and then between August 5, 2019 and November 15, 2019. Upon returning the file on November 15, 2019 I asked the Judicial Secretariat 3 to continue processing the case. I did not request it again and there was no obstruction of any kind. Of the 53 months that passed with the file in Court, the case was only before my Vocal Office, less than 10% of the total time ".
Regarding the alleged "explicit links" with the Blaquier, Rosenkrantz describes it as
"completely absurd"
.
Then, the minister seeks to refute the accusation regarding an "intentional disregard for human rights", which would be manifested in the fact that the Inter-Powers Commission for the Coordination and Expediting of Causes for Crimes Against Humanity never met since I assumed office. Presidency of the Court and that Rosenkrantz's decisions "were oriented to curtail the conquests and struggles that seek to vindicate the human rights movement."
"Again, the accusation is unfounded," insists the lawyer.
"The legislator did not indicate any specific decision adopted in my capacity as President that has violated the objectives that it indicates."
Rosenkrantz recalls that he arrived at the Court in August 2016, the last meeting of the Commission took place in September 2016, and although he was elected president in September 2018, "as is well known, the collegiate decision-making scheme that has been in force since December 2018 imposes that administrative and judicial oversight decisions are adopted with the will of at least three Ministers. "
To close this issue, he responds that last week a meeting of the Interpowers Commission was called for this Thursday, October 8.
Siley's indictment also "vaguely mentions alleged conflicts of interest that allegedly forced me to excuse myself in different cases," but Rosenkrantz replies that
"I never intervened in a case in which I had any obligation to excuse myself
.
"
Finally, the head of the Court defends himself against the accusation of Deputy K regarding his intervention in the "Amelong" case, according to which his position unduly prioritized the situation of convicted persons against humanity because during the extraordinary fair for the pandemic Rosenkrantz decided on his own as a fair judge that it was not appropriate to enable the fair to deal with that case, but enabled the Federal Oral Court 1 of Rosario to review whether the granting of house arrest was appropriate because the petitioner was a patient at risk.
"Actually, on April 1 of this year, in the aforementioned case, I rejected the authorization of the fair proposed by the accused, who questioned the restriction of his freedom, considering that he had not met the burden of proving the existence of an irreparable lien so that the qualification of fair would prosper ".
"In sum,
the accusations are unfounded,"
Rosenkrantz closes his statement. "Finally, I want to emphasize that in her complaint the legislator evoked a doctrinal quote that states that" it is a political procedure, with political purposes, which is based on causes. policies, the consideration of which is incumbent on a political body and subordinate to a political trial. ”As I see it,
the legislator makes a fundamental mistake: impeachment is one thing,
which aims to dismiss a judge for breach of his duties, and
Another thing is the judgment motivated by political, sectoral or other interests
. I have not breached any functional duty. "