The interim attorney of the Nation, edward casalissued an opinion this Tuesday in which he gave his opinion before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation to make room for a Complaint appeal presented by the provincial prosecutors Louis Schiappa Pietra and Matias Edery before a sentence of the Court of Santa Fe that endorse the privileges owned by the senator for the department of San Lorenzo Armando Traferri.
The legislator is currently suspected of integrating a alleged illicit association linked to a network of clandestine gamebut for more than a year and a half it cannot be taken to imputed hearing.
In the document –which is not binding–, Casal considered that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Santa Fe should be annulled for “lack of argumentative core in the votes of the five ministers who formed the majority.” In this context, he interpreted that the extraordinary appeal presented by the prosecutors Edery and Schiappa Pietra for the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation to analyze the ruling is appropriate.
It may interest you: The dark story of the police chief imprisoned for killing a thief and who deleted the data from his victim’s cell phone
“Attentive to what has been exposed,” said Casal in the opinion to which he agreed infobae– and in view of the antecedents narrated above, I believe that the appealed resolution does not exhibit a substantial majority agreement on the grounds that support the decision that the court adopts, for which I believe that it is appropriate disqualify it and order the issuance of a new”, he indicated.
And he added: “When reviewing that decision, two judges of the superior court ruled without further ado for the validity of the immunities regime, as provided for in the local order, considering that it did not exceed the margin under which the National Constitution guarantees to each province the exercise of its autonomy. Without contradicting that assertion, two other judges, instead, linked it to a certain interpretation of local regulations according to which —and contrary to what the chamber postulated— the relative immunity of process that governs in the province did not prevent summoning the legislator to the imputed hearing, but it was the immunity from arrest that in any case could prevent the holding of that hearing in the event that the legislator refused to attend voluntarily. Finally, the remaining opinion that concurred with the majority, affirmed that the ruling should be revoked because it departed from the records of the case that indicated that, in fact, the prosecuting body not only summoned the legislator to formulate charges, but that the act was carried out ”.
The interim attorney pointed out that: “In this way, it cannot be ensured that there is a clear and explicit majority of concordant groundsand this is also evidenced in the difficulty of the contesting party to identify each of the individual grounds that came together in the decision and submit them to their criticism, with the risk that this implies that it is an interested party that attributes the pronouncement to it. a foundation that he, as such, did not have”.
It may interest you: The son of Ramón Díaz who was involved in an accident in which his wife and another driver died was arrested
Casal asserted that: “In effect, it should be remembered that it is Your Excellency’s doctrine that the pronouncements of collegiate courts are invalid when they result from a mere aggregation of individual opinions that does not exhibit a majority match on the substance of the reasons that support what is resolved”.
The Supreme Court of the Nation, which does not have deadlines, before this opinion of Casal you can reject the complaint filed by the provincial prosecutors, or make room for the proposal –which would render the appealed decision null and void– and order the issuance of a new sentence.
In a ruling that took place in February of last year, courtiers from Santa Fe considered that the provincial Magna Carta protects the legislator suspected of corruption. They were based on article 27 of the local Criminal Procedure Code, which indicates that a deputy or senator can be charged as long as they have previously been lawless by the Legislature, a circumstance that did not prosper in the Upper House at the request of the prosecutors.
“We present the appeal because this already compromises the National State by ratifying Santa Fe the legality of parliamentary privileges, as they are regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure that A legislator cannot be imputed if he is not first removed. This implies probable responsibility of the Argentine State, which in its history has signed international agreements to advance the fight against corruption,” he commented to infobae in March of last year the prosecutor Schiappa Pietra, head of the Rosario Organized Crime Agency.
According to the judicial official, the clandestine gambling network they are investigating – for which the gambling capitalist was convicted Leonardo Peiti, former prosecutor Gustavo Ponce Asahadpolice, and where the former chief prosecutor of Rosario is accused Patrick Serjal– “managed the granting of legal gambling in Santa Fe from a lobby against the law with a former national deputywhat was it Dario Scatagliniwho is charged.”
“The former Formula 1 driver is already charged ‘Poppy’ Larrauri. When are we going to be able to do it with Traferri? He was the one who made the negotiations to give Peiti the legal game, knowing that he was handling all the illegal games, ”he assured.
The head of the Organized Crime Agency remarked that it was the convicted Peiti who declared during a hearing that “He gave Traferri money for the proselytizing campaign in which he participated in 2019.”
“Here there is evident coverage from the Judiciary and the Legislature that did not grant the exemption. We are waiting to see what the National Court does”, asserted Schiappa Pietra in the interview given to infobae last year.
Traferri’s case is special. For years he led the Peronist bloc in the Senate and, furthermore, being investigated, He denounced the prosecutors who are investigating him.. It is because in 2021 the senator filed a removal request for Edery and Schiappa Pietra because he considered that they breached the duties of a public official due to the alleged tools they used to access information from their telephone communications.
Keep reading:
