Defense Yennefer Paredes: What would be your defense’s approach to trying to overturn pre-trial detention?

On Sunday, August 28, Judge Johnny Gomez ordered the preventive detention of Yenifer Paredes, the president’s daughter-in-law. Peter’s castleand Angia Mayor José Medina for the alleged crime criminal organization. Although both were placed in the Ancón II prison, this measure can still be overturned in a second instance.

According to Public serviceParedes would be a lobbyist or promoter of an alleged criminal organization whose function would be to recruit mayors and speed up funding for sanitation projects in exchange for backing front companies that would be in charge of executing the files or the project itself. In a similar vein, Medina was accused of being a cameraman and his role was to lure businessmen to receive gifts in exchange for fraudulent rewards.

The judge considered that there were “strong and strong suspicions” regarding both defendants. To do this, he used statements made by businessman Hugo Espino through sincere confession, in addition to his conclusion. prosecution stamps of municipalities and banknotes in the house Yennefer Paredesaccounting for visits to the Government Palace and bank deposits totaling 91,000 soles.

What will be Yenifer Paredes’ defense strategy?

First step: appeal

Speaking to RPP News, Joseph Dionysuslawyer Mr. Yennefer Paredes, announced that the notice containing Judge Gomez’s resolution had not yet reached him. Although both procedural parties filed an appeal, there is a three-day time limit to substantiate their arguments, which will be counted from the moment they are notified.

“So far, the court has not informed us of the decision. After an appeal is filed, the magistrate must send us a resolution, and we have three days to submit our appeal in writing. They then have to qualify that resource and see if it actually meets all the assumptions required by the relevant rules. And with that in mind, if it matches, it raises it up to Appeals Chamber of the National Criminal Court. There again a qualification is held depending on whether it was correctly granted or not. If these instructions are given and given well, the parties are informed and a date for the hearing of the case is set,” he said.

In case this first strategy fails, the lawyer pointed out that there is an extraordinary way through appeal and another way. constitutional wayso I would choose this instance.

Either party may also appeal to Supreme Court or resort to the constitutional path which is the most appropriate. The emergency appeal procedure takes a long time and is very extensive. From my point of view, it is more guaranteed for me to move on to constitutional issues,” he explained.

Violation of fundamental rights

The president’s daughter-in-law’s defense assured that a number of rights of the person he sponsored would have been violated during the process, and criticized that Judge Gomez referred in more detail to what was exposed prosecution.

“From my point of view, effective jurisdictional protection, due process, the right to evidence, and lack of proper motivation have been violated. Only one side was seen, not the other. The speech of the justice of the peace was devoted only to exposing everything that corresponds to the prosecutor’s office and in other arguments, no matter how insignificant they may be, he only said that he does not contradict and does not cancel the position prosecution. Nothing else. And this tiny impact is not enough to be able to produce a result in your decision,” he said.

In the same vein, he noted that he visited plus miniaturea figure that refers to a situation where the judge provides more than one of the parties requires.

“At least he should have said why. He could argue that he was not satisfied with the defense, responding to the elements of the guilty verdict prosecution for one reason or another. At least minimally. And nothing big is required. However, the whole story with the prosecutor’s office does. See everything and more. There is plus miniature. He gives more than they asked for. There, the right to testify is violated because what the other side claims is not taken into account, right or wrong. We are facing violations of fundamental rights,” he said.

Interrogation at the request of the prosecutor’s office

Dionysus stated that the control verb used Public service is to promote. However, prosecutor Jorge Garcia did not mention this increase for an hour and a half, during which the presentation of evidence lasted.

” prosecution uses a directing verb that is supposed to promote. Legally, what he did is a promotion. But after an hour and a half of talking about more than 180 elements of an acquittal, there is no data, no information that would be of a characteristic nature of progress. For this reason, the judge asks them where are the facts, where are the facts that constitute the promotion. They even gave him another half an hour so that they could mention that this is not just a promotion, but an affiliation, ”he said.

This fact, according to Paredes’ lawyer, breeds insecurity and is a behavior that Judge Gomez should have warned about.

“For me, this part is essential. If I accused a person of promotion, I would say that he promoted. If, for example, I speak of fraud, I must point to this data, to this information, to this fact, this fact constitutes fraud. argument is used and objectively and intelligently observed and motivated, but he said nothing about it. That silence breeds defenselessness on one side”, He finished.

Is there a procedural risk?

Judge Johnny Gomez assessed that there is a risk of absconding and obstruction of justice for both involved. With regard to Paredes, he took into account the video of the meeting in Chota, calls with the former minister John Silva and loss of records government palace. As for Medina, he believed that his actions were “coordinated, strategic and planned” in order to avoid traces of the alleged crimes attributed to him.

“No other less onerous measure can be dictated,” the magistrate said. Therefore, he assessed 30 months of pre-trial detention as a “reasonable time”, a measure that will be valid until 8 and 9 February 2025 for Paredes and Medina, respectively.

Benji Espinoza: “Popularly the right decision, but legally wrong”

Per Benji EspinozaAttorney to President Pedro Castillo, Judge Johnny Gomez’s ruling is lenient with public opinion but falls short of the legal criteria he says should have been taken into account.

“We have a resolution that is caused by pressure from the media, pressure that the judge finally gave in to, to which he humanly gave in. Undoubtedly, this decision will be welcomed by the media. Surely the judge will become a new hero, but from a legal point of view, this is a resolution containing many shortcomings. People’s right decision, but legally wrong,” he said.

The lawyer asked a series of questions that, in his opinion, would weaken the magistrate’s criteria when reading the ruling.

“How can a judge give 30 months in prison for the prosecutor’s office to complete the process, if the prosecutor’s office itself agreed on 36 months for the investigation? How is the risk of obstruction constructed by saying that it follows from the crimes that could be committed that there will be a risk of obstruction? That is, how do you build a suspicion on another suspicion? This is what was banned by the Constitutional Court after the Humala Heredia case,” he said.

Miguel Angel Soria: “It’s a fair decision”

On the contrary, criminal defense lawyer and former Deputy Minister of Justice Miguel Ángel Soria considered it a fair measure, as the behavior of the defendants was not reliable.

“In a global analysis, I think this is a fair decision. I believe that the investigators themselves cooperated in order to reach a decision of this kind. Behavior in the process is not reliable behavior, it is not the kind of behavior that allows a judge or a prosecutor to reasonably understand that they are not going to evade the actions of justice or are not going to interfere with evidentiary activity,” he said. .

However, Soria pointed out that the deadline set by Judge Gomez could be subject to discussion in a higher court due to the apparent lack of support.

“On the part of the Government Palace itself, actions have been taken to make it possible to conclude that there is a procedural danger (…). (However, the judge shows that the prosecutor did not specifically justify why he is asking for 36 months. It does not indicate step by step what procedures are pending and how long it will take to complete them. The judge does the same in his order: he does not explain, but simply gives a time limit of 30 months, but does not explain why all the ongoing processes, which the prosecutor did not know how to explain, would last 30 months,” he said.