The judge rejected the prosecutor’s request to confiscate access cameras to the presidential residence and the Government Palace

Judge Justinian Romero rejected the prosecutor’s office’s request to seize surveillance footage from the presidential residence and government palace of 8, 9 and 10 August in the case of Yenifer Paredes, daughter-in-law of the President Peter’s castle.

So the magistrate Eighth National Preparatory Court of Inquiry declared inadmissible the request submitted by public prosecutor Hans Aguirre to determine whether the defendant Yenifer Paredes was at the headquarters of the executive branch when the police and prosecutors went for her provisional arrest.

“Declare inadmissible the ‘Petition for the search and seizure of video materials, video materials and recordings of surveillance cameras at the entrances to the presidential residence and the Government Palace,’” the justice of the peace ruled.

Romero was the judge who issued the preliminary arrest warrant. Yennefer Paredes as part of an investigation conducted by the prosecutor’s office into alleged crimes of a criminal organization and trade in influence to the detriment of the state.

This tax request came after diligence in arresting the person under investigation caused a delay of almost an hour for the police to enter the headquarters of the executive branch, when they managed to enter, the person under investigation was no longer at that place.

justification

In his ruling, the judge indicated that the ruling thus issued prosecution Execution of the preliminary arrest of the daughter-in-law of President Pedro Castillo was given for the residence government palacewhere the prosecutor indicated that he resides Yennefer Paredesa space that does not include the office of the president or the rooms of the presidential residence, with the exception of the Government Palace.

Furthermore, it pointed out that its court was not empowered to consider the prosecutor’s request because the earlier authorization had been issued only for the provisional arrest of Yenifer Paredes and not for the President of the Republic.

He also argued that the reasons for the appeal of the tax service with the seizure of video materials, video recordings and recordings from CCTV cameras of August 8, 09 and 10 were not substantiated or argued, since these dates are not related to the facts attributed to the persons participating in the investigation.

“Neither in the tax claim, nor in the regulation that protects it, is it allowed to collect any film recordings; as well as 08, 09 and 10 August 2022; and with the exception of those associated with the residence or other persons associated with the President of the Republic, the same, which must be considered by a competent judge, ”he argues.

The judge adds that since the requirement prosecution associated with government palace and the President of the Republic, so that if the Public Prosecutor’s Office attempts to conduct an investigation, it must act in accordance with Article 99 of the Political Constitution.

This article states that the Permanent Commission has the right to bring charges before Congress to the President, among other high-ranking officials, for violation of the Constitution and for any crime committed by them in the exercise of their functions, and for a period of five years after the termination of their exercise.

In this regard, the magistrate indicated that the prosecutor’s request was sent for investigation President of the Republica high-ranking official for whom a special procedure is established in the Magna Carta, “The Specialized Court is not competent.”