Gladys Echaíz: “PJ has questioned the independence and impartiality of the judge” | principle

Congresswoman Gladys Echaíz (popular renewal) closed two law books to answer our call. He says he is trying to refresh himself by understanding the legal issues better. She doesn’t want to lose her habit, especially since tomorrow, Monday, July 3, an announcement will be made by the plenary chamber of the Supreme Court on Zoraida Avalos Rivera. He maintains his distance on the matter but makes observations about the apparent interference of judges. In this interview, he also testified on other points, such as the term limiting the duration of effective cooperation.

Doesn’t effective collaboration turn into ineffective collaboration?

It is the answer that the justices themselves can give, but from the outside, what we know is that the collaborators later denied it and issued statements questioning all the work of the public ministry. Because if it is a false statement, what is confirmed? It was suggested in some newspapers that these statements of unproven witnesses were even used to demand temporary arrests. It is a malpractice related to the ethics and morals of the lawyer. I imagine it served to follow the company itself.

Do you think the limits of 8 months and 4 additional months established in the bill for effective cooperation are reasonable?

This is considered a reasonable period. However, attorneys can make calls before a judge for the extraordinary extension the code allows when it comes to a complex issue.

How do you respond to criticism from senior officials like the Justice Minister?

Of course they don’t do the business, they don’t know the procedure. They don’t remember that in the past these types of special procedures lasted only 15 days during the terror period, where we won the trial.

In all cases?

Well, all the terror complaints gave a positive result. A complaint made by the prosecutor along with what he gathered during the preliminary investigation usually led to an arrest warrant. If we didn’t provide evidence that convinced the judge, they were released.

But this useful collaboration tool has depreciated over time, hasn’t it?

It was born with the intention that members of an organization should cooperate to identify leaders. Ringleaders did not have this benefit, but later, in 2013, the instrument was changed to extend the benefit to ringleaders. No one said anything there. No one tore their clothes.

Is that why you now consider the question of statute of limitations irrelevant?

Now it seems to me that we are talking about deadlines. They complain so much that I find it hard to understand. Seems like a lack of consistency to me.

Under all this logic, doesn’t effective cooperation become a tool for impunity?

In some cases, it may be.

Some of the people who were surveyed were talented applicants or Ms. Collaborators like Sada Gore live a peaceful life…

He is a collaborator because he has provided some data, but other things are being discovered. And nothing happens to him. Laws are given in the light of events of facts of vicissitudes in life…

I want to emphasize: there are people associated with high level of corruption, they are even in other countries and there are no restrictions. Can a person surrender to cooperation and be quickly acquitted of all crimes?

The said should be verified. Once validated, the contribution will be significant if it is useful and helps in taking down companies and identifying money laundering sites. But there must be on the part of the co-operator, a determination not to influence such behavior again. (…) It is the magistrates who must present a plan to gradually adjust and refine the laws that serve as a tool for their work, because the rules of procedure are tools to facilitate operation.

Can a lawyer’s practice be questioned in certain cases?

Some lawyers may. Applying the term may be wrong, but that does not call the institution into question.

Do you think prosecutor Marita Barretto was right to go to Punta Cana to investigate Sada Korey?

The moment he does so, suddenly, it justifies the search for evidence. If you’re looking for information and it’s worth a try, great. But if it had happened now it would have taken on another meaning. Each thing must be analyzed in its moment and at the time of its occurrence. Now, how important is what you’ve got? That’s another topic…

Sure, but for being investigated for corruption of that magnitude, the prosecutor himself was given the privilege of going after him?

Well, there are situations, for example, in the case of Lava Zato. There are precedents.

But are you looking at it wrong?

I don’t know, but you have to look behind the scenes of an investigation inside it, and how important data is to moving forward.

And if the data doesn’t matter?

Well, that’s another story.

What are your thoughts on Monday’s plenary chamber meeting and how much do you think it will affect what Congress decides on the Zoraida Avalos case?

I have an opinion from a technical point of view. I have a few questions, but I’d like to reserve them until they finish asking their questions. But I am going to tell you just one thing: to entrust them with the responsibility of conducting an investigation and to act in this nature is to create a barrier, because they must excuse themselves and refrain from interfering, and here they have expressed an opinion. Political interest in the issue. Now, from the point of analysis of freedom and autonomy (of the judiciary), let’s see what they are going to say, because there is objective, subjective freedom, which we can discuss in due course. Now, there are at least eight people who cannot intervene in that process (per Zoraida Avalos).

Do you see the potential for a power struggle to erupt?

No, Congress is not clashing with anyone. In its course, it went through a process that no one questioned and an agreement was reached after the process was completed. It seems like everyone’s sensitive where they feel offended, they feel damaged, they feel reached by that decision, I don’t know… and I don’t know, because I don’t know the content(s). accent) and I mean the whole room. Now, on the other hand, the Judiciary, through its Chairman or Ex-President, does not participate in these Houses of Government, where the general policies of the Executive and Legislative Branches are discussed, and it must be very remote. Some point? Don’t they cry for that? Today they talk about “operational independence and Congress can’t rule on jurisdiction,” the prosecutor (referring to Avalos) is not part of the jurisdiction. The prosecutor investigates the intervention before the court. It is controlled by the judge. Decisions of prosecutors are neither res judicata nor res judicata. So what are we talking about?

Can this be interpreted as the intervention of a full bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Zoraida Avalos against Congress?

This may mean presenting an opinion for a reason that they are going to know.

In other words, will there be interference?

In other words, there would be a violation of the due process of the principle of impartiality, the principle of liberty which they ostensibly seek to protect. I don’t think that will happen because it will be too serious.

What do you think of San Martin and those who have promoted it in the plenary chamber, which would be the Supreme Court?

It was definitely an emotional moment. There are times when we are swayed by certain emotions, but a magistrate must always think, be calm, and evaluate things in all their dimensions and in the scale that is consistent with them.

What is the evidence for that?

A request can be a reactive fact, and there is no emotion and reaction. It is concrete and clear that they question the autonomy and impartiality a judge should have in a process.

On the other hand, how do you see a possible alliance between Fuerza Popular and free Peru?

I don’t know if the alliance is possible or not. They may have talked about having a table with the participation of all the groups so that the work can be progressed or the Congress can jointly analyze the current issues or draw up some guidelines in support. Company. If that’s the vision, why can’t we make an alliance? Another thing is political deals, but if it’s an institutional decision, if it’s a different institutional policy, I don’t see that as questionable.

Could your bench be part of this ultimate alliance?

We haven’t met yet. We have been informed that the meeting to discuss this matter will be held after the representation week, ie on Saturday the 15th or Monday the 17th.

If your caucus decided you would be a candidate for chairman of the board of directors, would you decline?

We need to talk to find out if there are strong reasons to do that, but there aren’t any yet.

Suppose you can work for a country’s agenda, right?

I said the other day: When it comes to country, no one is in denial.

Many see you as suitable for the position, how do you feel?

Like another Congresswoman.