Lucia Salinas
03/04/2021 17:28
Clarín.com
Politics
Updated 03/04/2021 17:28
The hearing of the accused for alleged fraudulent administration in the sale of the future dollar before the Chamber of Cassation marked the judicial agenda this Thursday.
Cristina Kirchner spoke for almost fifty minutes with an explosive speech criticizing justice.
But at the end of that videoconference called by Chamber I of the highest criminal court, the prosecutor
Raúl Pleé
reiterated something already raised in December: that
the trial against the vice president, Axel Kicillof, Alejandro Vanoli and other defendants must be carried out.
During the investigation, it was confirmed that Cristina and her then Minister of the Economy,
Axel Kicillof
, along with other former officials, committed "a huge fraud against public assets," which
cost the State "55 billion pesos
.
"
The vice president always maintained that it was a
State policy that should not be prosecuted
.
The appeal before the Chamber of Cassation began after an expert opinion carried out by the specialists of the Supreme Court, which concluded that the Central Bank had not had losses in its 2015 fiscal year. Then, the defendants requested the dismissal and as a direct consequence, that the trial is not held.
The first to reject this claim was the prosecutor before the Federal Oral Court 1 (TOF 1) that is in charge of the case.
Diego Velasco stated: "By virtue of the conclusions reached by the experts, I formally request that they be summoned to the debate to evacuate questions and formulate clarifications regarding the points of the expert opinion answered there", and that since the stage of instruction "
the prompt initiation of the debate is arranged."
The TOF 1 endorsed the position of the prosecution
and rejected the requests for dismissal.
For Cristina Kirchner it was an "arbitrary measure" and that is why she resorted to the highest criminal court.
In the higher instance, last December, the prosecutor before the Cassation Raúl Pleé, declared himself supporting Velasco's position.
"Beyond argumentative efforts, it is well known that
the contested resolution is not a final judgment nor is it comparable to such
. On the contrary, it is a resolution that provides for the continuation of the process that, due to its complexity and the number of parties , has not been extended for an unreasonable period. "
Under these same guidelines, Pleé now understood that the defendants did not request the dismissal "invoking an excessive delay in the processing of the case, but that the defense request is based solely on the examination of evidence produced during the supplementary investigation, to which assign sufficient entity to avoid the realization of the debate ".
The prosecutor maintains that the expertise indicated by the parties, which consisted of at least 80 points, is not the only evidentiary measure in the case.
And that
its conclusions are not sufficient to prevent the oral debate from taking place.
This Thursday, the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office was the last to speak during the hearing.
For fifteen minutes, he reiterated his position on the request for suspension of the trial and the issuance of dismissals.
"There are other legal solutions when the absence of crime is verified. This refers to the lack of action and is not the case because it occurs in atypicality", was the first thing I raised.
But focusing specifically on the expert report, Pleé recalled that the discussion on the criminal responsibility of the case, where a fraudulent administration and incompatible negotiations can not be exhausted in this evidence.
"In the analysis of the expert evidence incorporated in the supplementary instruction, the nature of the expertise is confused," he said, since "
experts in the accounting area cannot be issued on criminal responsibility
, they only answer questions related to their sphere of knowledge. , and only those that have been formulated ".
That is why Pleé understood that those doubts must be evacuated in the oral debate, where
the official experts and those of the party
who intervened in that test measure
must be summoned as witnesses
.
At the conclusion of his statement, the prosecutor asked that Chamber I of the Cassation Chamber
reject the requests for dismissal
and thus enable the Federal Oral Court 1, as requested by prosecutor Velasco, to begin with the oral debate that has as the main defendant Cristina Kirchner.