Montoya and Cueto criticized the judge for denying access to the Government Palace’s security cameras.

Renovación Popular congressmen Jose Cueto and Jorge Montoya today criticized the decision Power of attorney (PJ) decline request prosecution seize records surveillance cameras in the presidential residence and the Government Palace as part of the case of Yenifer Paredes, daughter-in-law of the president Peter’s castle.

From the Hall of Lost Steps, legislator Montoya accused pajamas about “obstructing” justice by denying delivery of images dated August 8, 9 and 10 to determine if the sister is the first lady, Lilia Paredes, She was at the seat of government when the police and prosecutors arrived to arrest her on a provisional basis.

“It’s another obstruction to justice, again. Looks like the judge got it wrong on who’s requesting the information. The camera does not shoot anything secret, the secrets are in the documents […] What you want from the cameras is to see the movement that is happening inside the palace,” Montoya told the media.

For his part, parliamentarian José Cueto called the decision of Judge Justiniano Romero “strange”. In his opinion, it is “necessary” to have access to CCTV cameras in order to find out if there was an alleged cover-up in favor of Yenifer Paredes.

“It’s strange to see some judges stealing powers they shouldn’t have when they try to ask Congress to do their job. On the other hand, you see a judge who prevents the information needed to confirm whether the lady (Yenifer Paredes) was in the palace,” he said.

In the same sense, the lawyer spoke Caesar Nakazawakiwho undertakes the legal protection of those under investigation Bruno Pacheco D karelim lopez. It is also “strange” for the lawyer that Judge Romero denied the prosecutor’s request.

“It’s strange (…) The judge, by refusing to pre-arrest (in the first instance) and with this refusal to seize documents or equipment from the presidential residence, only does what he continues to break the 20-year judicial practice (…) He calls me a lot, because is not a patron of judges of the Supreme Court of Justice,” Nakazaki said in an interview with Panorama.

“Unfortunately, in such cases, the executive branch always interferes with justice, but it always interfered with obtaining guilty verdicts. Now the same formula, but with a different purpose,” he added.

The judiciary is not a “table of parts of the prosecutor’s office”

Benji Espinoza, a lawyer for President Pedro Castillo, welcomed the decision and reaffirmed that the judiciary is not the state ministry’s “party table”, in addition to stating that judges are not required to accept “illegal requests” from prosecutors.

“This is a type of resolution that is decided without a hearing, it is a request, the judge only considers the request and determines whether the prosecution is right or not, the judge found the request inadmissible, you can appeal and it will be seen in the second instance, the main thing is that court decisions are respected , I did not hear criticism when this same judge ordered the arrest of Yenifer Paredes, and now that he has rejected the request, now he is being criticized, we must be consistent, we must respect the institutions,” the media said yesterday, leaving the Government Palace.

“The judge is not obliged to sanction illegal requests, the judge is not the desk of the prosecutor’s office, although some do not like it,” the lawyer added.