This Tuesday, the preclusion hearing of the investigation for bribery of a witness in criminal proceedings and procedural fraud against the former president began before the 28th criminal court of the Bogotá circuit Alvaro Uribe; however, this issue was not addressed.
The investigation focused on the request for recognition as victims of two people: the journalist Gonzalo guillén and Deyanira Gómez, ex-partner of Juan Guillermo Monsalve key witness in the case against Uribe.
At the beginning of the diligence Miguel del RioGómez’s lawyer, recounted the damages that according to him have been caused to the woman, who is currently in asylum in another country, after losing her job and then receiving threats for which she managed to have a protection scheme.
“A woman testified in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and his interventions generated that for the lawyer Diego chain –Ex-representative of Uribe and prosecuted for bribery and procedural fraud– and Álvaro Uribe was the obstacle to Juan Guillermo Monsalve’s retraction, that appreciation that she was a danger and his need to locate her generated his exile to a different country just to say the truth”Said del Río when he asked that she be taken as a victim.
(If you are interested: Live preclusion hearing of Álvaro Uribe case)
Subsequently, Roberto Rodríguez, the journalist’s lawyer, intervened. Gonzalo guillén, who also asked to be recognized as a victim in the process arguing non-pecuniary damage because, in statements by Jaime Lombana –Uribe’s lawyer– Presumably he pointed out that he was “a sinister person, he works for Carlos Mattos (prosecuted for corruption)”, something that, he said, is false.
Faced with these requests, the prosecutor Gabriel Jaimes Duran, who is taking the case before the prosecuting body, asked not to accredit Gómez and Guillén as victims, arguing that they did not meet the requirements to attribute that status to them.
“The lady has no direct and binding link or participation with those events (…) but it is an accreditation as a witness within the events. (…) And Mr. Guillén does not even have the quality of witness to say that he witnessed events, it is wrong to attribute any direct and immediate link or relationship as a consequence of the legally relevant events. Neither was a real and specific damage accredited to Guillén“Commented the prosecutor.
The lady has no direct and binding link or participation with those events (…) but it is an accreditation as a witness within the events
For his part, Jorge Sanjuán, prosecutor for this case, considered that if people consider themselves victims of events other than those under investigation, they should constitute themselves as victims in the processes carried out for those events.
Reinaldo Villalba, attorney for Ivan cepeda – already recognized as a victim in this case – considered that Gómez should be considered as a victim in this process “because it is as a result of this investigation that he has been a victim and suffered the damages that were exposed to us”.
The former Deputy Attorney General Jorge Perdomo and the former attorney general Eduardo Montealegre they also agreed to provisionally recognize Gómez and Guillén as victims.
(You may be interested: Who is who in the case against Álvaro Uribe Vélez?)
In the other side Jaime Granados, Uribe’s lawyer, opposed the recognition as victims because for him the consequences of being part of a process do not lead to accreditation as a victim but a right to protection, in the case of Gómez; and about Guillén he said that his accreditation would be to convert “the process in a show due to the absolute absence of support with the alleged crime. Mr. Guillén has nothing to do with here”.
The hearing was suspended around 2 o’clock in the afternoon on Tuesday, as the judge considered that it is necessary to thoroughly analyze the arguments against the request to recognize Gonzalo Guillén and Deyanira Gómez as victims.
The diligence will resume next Friday, April 9 at 8:00 a.m. m. to hear the decision regarding that petition for accreditation as victims; decision that, in any case, could be appealed.