“Comrade Guzzi”: Reasons for the PJ to agree to a provisional request for S/500 thousand against Rocio Leandro Melgar and others for the protests in Ayacucho | Shining Path | | principle

The Department of Justice (PJ) accepted the provisional demand of S/500 thousand Office of the Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor vs. civil indemnity Rocio Leandro Melgar‘Comrade Kusi’ and six others have been booked for alleged terrorism-related offences, causing harm to the state.

The Third Criminal Appeals Chamber of the National High Court announced it had instituted an appeal filed by anti-terrorist lawyer Milko Ruiz so that his office could be set up as a civil actor in the process.

The Attorney General’s Office shall jointly pay the amount requested by the defendants Alex Gomez Falcon, Alejandro Jose Manay Billaca, Estefany Jasmin Alanya Champez, Piero Giles Gamboa, Fernando Quinto Cuba, Ulyssa Ordón and Ulyssa Ordón. If they are found guilty.

Meera: Harvey Colzado asks to be reinstated in Dviak: What are the arguments for his request for protection?

In this way, the High Court annulled the decision of the first case judge Leotan Cristóbal Ayala, who rejected the participation of the Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office as an actor in the defense of the state.

According to tax inquiries, ‘Gusi’ joined the ranks of Sendero Luminoso. Later, as part of Fredeba – which they accused of being a front for the terrorist group’s so-called New Red Zone – he engaged in violent activities during the protests in Ayacucho after Pedro Castillo’s coup.

Lawyer Milko Ruiz: “It’s the right decision”

In an interview with this newspaper, lawyer Milko Ruiz described the Appeals Chamber’s decision as “correct”. He pointed out that the first trial judge had “unnecessarily” left the government helpless in a case as critical as alleged acts committed by people associated with terrorist organizations.

“The decision of the Appellate Chamber to grant state representation in this proceeding linked to Comrade Kusi is the correct decision of the Appeals Chamber, and the appeal we presented contains all the technical arguments defended by the Chamber.”

Milko Ruiz, Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor

According to the State’s counsel, the production trial judge would have called for “evidence” at an inappropriate point. He pointed out that the case is not at the impeachment control or oral hearing stage, where elements must be presented to support each of their claims for civil damages.

“The court has now corrected the judge and agreed with us and the judge’s improper decision is overturned. This is an issue already established by the Judiciary. “In the civil constitution, a statement of facts and approximations is made along with documents about reference amounts of possible compensation, which must be proved at the intermediate stage or trial,” he concluded.

Arguments of the Chamber

In an analysis of the case, the first trial judge declared the constitutionality of the Office of the Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor as a civil actor unconstitutional, alleging that the “quantum” of compensation was not met with precision and support.

As alleged, the preparatory trial judge said that an “irregular” amount was presented without any objective justification, as the relevant data did not reflect the state’s investment in the fight against terrorism in the Ayacucho region in 2022. Place or time of crime.

And the point is that according to the Magistrate, there is no consistency in contending that the defendants committed illegal acts in the town of Huamanga from August 2022 to January 2023 and that is why S /. 500,000 as civil compensation.

However, as a support or reference data, we used the S/109’065,548.00 budget invested by the government in the fight against terrorism from 2012 to 2020 at the national level.

For this reason, the Attorney General’s Office pointed out in its appeal that the first trial judge “erred” by stating that data on government investment in the fight against insurgency from 2012 to 2020 was not relevant to the events under investigation.

Because it was mentioned that it was only a reference to identify the budget passed at the national level for the war against terrorism. Also, it is mentioned that at the interim stage, the means of evidence are provided to prove your claim and you are not required to provide objective data during the preparatory hearing.

For their part, in the appeal, the accused Quinto Cuba, Alanya Chumps, Gómez Ayala, Manay Billaka, Canales Tantalion, Giles Gamboa and Gómez Falcon requested that the appeal be declared unfounded and the first party decision confirmed.

The judge considered that the Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office requested an unreasonable amount of compensation as the official letter of the General Budget Directorate of the Ministry of Economy and Finance – Expenditure in the fight against sabotage – was not contemporaneous with the temporal or spatial structure. A presumption of guilt against the defendants, and therefore an “inconsequential” amount was proposed.

However, the court “argued by the judge that he was carrying out an analysis of the procedure, relevance, but not the analysis of the foundation”, i.e. a substantive judgment on the value of the document, which was incorrect.

A preliminary hearing judge cannot, or should not, undertake an evidentiary analysis of a claim for damages during the postulatory phase of the proceeding. [de constitución en actor civil]It concerns a judgment of appearance but not foundation, and must of course be justified according to the standard of analysis. [art. 100 del CPP] and to the directions of the Judiciary [Acuerdo Plenario 05-2011/CJ-116] In that case it has been precisely accomplished.

Third Criminal Appeals Chamber

At another extreme, the court pointed out that even if the document provided by the Attorney General’s Office – expenses in the fight against vandalism – were different from the amount of civil compensation, the judge of the first instance would have concluded that the amount was not. The amount specified in this type of claims for civil constitution, “completed or proven claims cannot be claimed.”

Therefore, if the Attorney General’s claim involves excessive or inappropriate amounts, this will not constitute grounds for rejecting your claim, as it will be at the proper procedural moment in which you must prove that amount. The attorney general’s office bears the procedural burden of proving his claim, failing which it will reject or reduce it.

For all these reasons, the first trial judge “erred” in rendering a substantive judgment, requesting inapposite justifications, and therefore it was appropriate to set aside the initial decision and establish the Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office as a civil body. actor