Defensoría (هيئة الدفاع العام) تطلب إلغاء محاكمة الاحتيال الضخم على Fonasa (صندوق الصحة العام) بسبب قاضيات في إجازة مرضية

La defensa de nueve condenados cuestiona la imparcialidad del tribunal y pide a la Corte Suprema invalidar un proceso que duró 122 jornadas.بالإسبانية

مشاركة

بالإنجليزية

The Public Criminal Defender's Office (DPP), the state agency that provides free defense to defendants without a private lawyer, filed an appeal to annul the trial over the medical leave megafraud against the National Health Fund (Fonasa). The Supreme Court will decide the case.

According to Emol, the defense's main argument concerns the participation of two judges who faced removal proceedings for traveling abroad while on sick leave. A removal proceeding is an internal procedure within the judiciary that can result in a judge's removal from office.

On August 31, the court convicted nine defendants represented by the Public Defender's Office. The sources do not specify the sentences, the crimes for which they were convicted or the case number (RIT or RUC, the codes used to identify each proceeding).

The controversy began on June 18, during closing arguments, the final stage before the court deliberates. That day, Judge Alejandra García Bocaz recused herself, meaning she stopped participating in the case, after removal proceedings were opened against her.

García Bocaz had participated in virtually the entire trial, which lasted 122 trial days, and was responsible for drafting the ruling. The Public Defender's Office questions her withdrawal when the proceedings were almost complete and argues that it could have affected the court's impartiality.

The second judge mentioned is Grace Díaz Salvo, who also traveled abroad while on sick leave. She read out the guilty verdict on August 31, according to information published by Emol based on reporting by El Mercurio.

At this stage, the convictions can still be reviewed, and the nine convicted defendants can appeal. The sources do not provide the prosecution's or the judges' responses to the appeal.

The Supreme Court must now review the arguments and decide whether to invalidate the trial. If it grants the appeal, it could order a new trial before a different court. If it rejects the appeal, the August 31 convictions will become final. No date has yet been announced for the hearing.

نشرات بريدية مجانية

عرض صفحة النشرات البريدية