Court warns of debacle due to change of rules in cases of graduates – Courts – Justice

(Read: Supreme Court warns of impunity for possible change of rules)

According to the lawsuit, this oral system should have been in force since December 31, 2008 for all people, for crimes committed since 2005. In a document known by EL TIEMPOthe Supreme Court said that granting the lawsuit, despite the fact that Law 600 gives full guarantees to the appraised, would lead to the decline of justice.

(Read: The debate that could make a new surgery to the Supreme Court)

It is not possible to promote the debacle of criminal justice by leaving in suspense legitimate processes carried out in accordance with the law prior to the imputed act, in the name of guarantees that are not in question.

This is the second ruling that the Supreme Court, as an institution, addresses to the Constitutional Court (the first was made by the First Instance Chamber) on this debate, which, although technical, is key.

(Read: With impediments, debate begins for rules to investigate congressmen)

This is because, as revealed by EL TIEMPO, the constitutional court could order the division of the current Investigation Chamber of the Supreme Court, which is in charge of investigating congressmen and accusing them, if that is the case, before the Court of Justice. First Instance of that court.

The division would imply that three of its magistrates act as prosecutors and the other three as judges of guarantees, to adapt the Chamber to the accusatory criminal system.

The accused norm in no way indicates the extinction or disappearance of Law 600 of 2000, or that as of 2008 it is not possible to carry out an investigation by that procedural regime.

Now, in case of pronouncing in the background, the Criminal Chamber asked the Constitutional Court to leave things as they are by pointing out that already in 2005 that high court ruled on the standards demanded, so there would be res judicata. And he pointed out that the article in question, 530 of Law 906 of 2004, did not seek the elimination of Law 600 of 2000.

(Read: Lawsuit opens debate on how congressmen are investigated)

“The accused norm in no way indicates the extinction or disappearance of Law 600 of 2000, or that as of 2008 it is not possible to carry out an investigation by that procedural regime, with respect to punishable conduct committed before 2005 or in a judicial district in which the system provided for in Law 906 of 2004 had not been implemented,” said the Criminal Chamber.

“Accept – as proposed by the plaintiffs – that after December 31, 2008 it is not possible to apply the rules contained in the procedural system provided for in Law 600 of 2000is to create a rule that neither implicit nor much less explicitly, is derived from the text of article 5 of Legislative Act 03 of 2002”, added the Criminal Chamber.

Full room of the constitutional court 2022.

Photo:

Milton Diaz / Weather

When the double instance was created in the Supreme Court, the full validity of Law 600 of 2000 was ratified and the creation of figures of the oral system as judges of control of guarantees was not contemplated.

The high court pointed out that what the Investigation Chamber currently does, under Law 600 of 2000, is completely valid and legitimate, even more so if one takes into account that this chamber was created in a constitutional reform of 2018 that finally provided for the double instance for the constitutional appraisers and implemented the right to double compliance.

“Not even with the issuance of Legislative Act 01 of 2018 was the existence of a fundamental right to be tried under the rules of the accusatory process contemplated, as derived from the arguments of the lawsuit, since the due process contemplated by the Law was maintained. 600 of 2000”, stated the Criminal Chamber.

(Read: The Attorney General asks to dismiss the lawsuit that seeks to overthrow the inquisitorial system)

“Consequently, it is not valid either to maintain that there is a predominantly constitutional procedural statute (Law 906 of 2004) over another (Law 600 of 2000), nor to suppose it as the lawsuit does, especially when the trial under the procedural rules of the two coexisting models fully safeguard the guarantees of the pre-existing, independent and impartial natural judgeas well as the legal and prior determination of its competence in the abstract, all in preservation of a processing under equal conditions, “he added.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that the Constitutional Court ratified the coexistence of both criminal proceedings and pointed out that the creation of the double instance by Congress in 2018 did not resort to figures typical of an accusatory system, such as the guarantee control judges, but , on the contrary, with schemes typical of Law 600 of 2000.

“LThe division between the functions of investigation and judgment within the Supreme Court of Justice point to the maintenance of the procedural system of Law 600 of 2000, because it is inconceivable that with the new constitutional structure of the Criminal Chamber of the Court, introduced with Legislative Act 01 of 2018, a procedural system could be articulated that requires the existence of an actor that controls the guarantees of the procedural subjects, that the own constitutional reform did not foresee”, he indicated.

(Read: For 7 years, a worker had to give half her salary to a congressman)

justice reform

If Law 600 of 2000 should be inapplicable from December 30, 2008 to processes in progress, the proceedings in process would have to accommodate Law 906 of 2004, causing a judicial catastrophe.

It is about making it clear if the ruling would have a retroactive effect that leaves already failed processes in suspense, such as the parapoliticsas well as the transition rules on the end of Law 600 and the application rules, the favorability regime.

(Read: What will happen to Piedad Córdoba after the election of the new president?)

In addition, on “rules to determine the statute of limitations in relation to pending matters” and “operational guidelines in the case of the unconstitutionality of article 533 (partial) of Law 906 of 2004: for example, who would exercise guarantee control functions, how would they do it, with respect to what processes”.

“The adventure proposed by the plaintiffs would have unpredictable costs: if Law 600 of 2000 should be inapplicable as of December 30, 2008 to processes in progress for acts committed during its validity –not after, of course–, the actions in process would have to accommodate Law 906 of 2004, as justified by some interveners, causing a judicial catastrophe on account of the interpretation that is formulated and that is not the only one constitutionally admissible”, added the Chamber.

The high court emphasized that both models conform to the Constitution and that, therefore, it is “exotic to think that only one procedural model is compatible (…) If so, One would have to think, for example, of the folly of establishing a judge of guarantees to control another judge, as it would have to happen if we accepted that the law applicable to the appraised persons investigated by the Court should be Law 906 of 2004. That cannot be so. The control, how the decisions between judges are resolved, is solved through the resources”.

(Read: Girón: Court confirms nullity of Carlos Román’s election as mayor)

Leave a Comment