The Judiciary formalized a preparatory investigation into the case of former National Prosecutor, Zoraida Ávalos.
The State Attorney General’s Office requested that the Judiciary be included as a civil actor in the preparatory accusation against the former prosecutor of the Nation, Zoraida Ávalos, who is accused of committing the alleged crimes of omission, refusal or delay of functional acts by suspending, at the time, the investigations against former president Pedro Castillo.
You may be interested in: Cheryl Trigozo: Attorney General’s Office denounces APP congressman for fraudulent embezzlement
To respond to this request, Judge Juan Carlos Checkley, head of the Supreme Preparatory Investigation Court of the Supreme Court of Justice, called a virtual hearing for this Monday, October 2 at 9:00 a.m.
This is a second step in the case of the former head of the Public Ministry, who was disqualified from public service for five years by the Plenary Session of the Congress of the Republic with 71 votes in favor, 15 against and eight abstentions on December 21. June of this year.
You may be interested in: María Cordero: Attorney General’s Office denounces parliamentarian for the alleged crime of fraudulent embezzlement
After learning of this decision, Patricia Benavides, the National Prosecutor, formalized the investigation against Ávalos. However, she still has the possibility of presenting an exception appeal in order for the Judiciary to make a ruling on the crimes attributed to her. If she takes this step, Judge Checkley will be able to evaluate him in the first instance because he received the folder.
Publication of the Judiciary on the case of Zoraida Ávalos.
In a second instance, his appeal would be debated in the Permanent Penal Room of the Supreme Court, which is made up of César Eugenio San Martín Castro (president), Manuel Estuardo Lujan Tupez, María del Carmen Paloma Altabás Kajatt, Iván Alberto Sequeiros Vargas and Norma Beatriz Carbajal Chavez.
You may be interested in: The challenges for the formation of the JNJ and the threat of its dissolution by Congress
San Martín is one of the judges who disapproved of Ávalos’ disqualification and asked the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court, together with Elvia Barrios, Janet Tello, Carlos Calderón, César Proaño, Ulises Yaya and Víctor Castillo, to rule on what It would be an impact on “the independence and autonomy” of the judicial system.
However, the Supreme Court decided in an internal vote not to rule in the case of the former National Prosecutor.
This fact is linked to the summary investigation that the Justice Commission is continuing against the members of the National Board of Justice – Imelda Tumialán, Aldo Vásquez, Henry Ávila, Inés Tello, Humberto de la Haza, María Zavala and Guillermo Thornberry – for alleged serious misconduct in the exercise of their duties.
Supreme judges César San Martín and Elvia Barrios disagreed with the disqualification of the former National Prosecutor, Zoraida Ávalos.
Former prosecutor Ávalos said that she would go to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) after exhausting internal remedies: her request for protection and precautionary measures were rejected by the Judiciary.
The IACHR also published a statement, at the time, to show the concern it had about the actions that Congress took against the former head of the Public Ministry.
“The IACHR recalls that, in accordance with inter-American standards, the guarantees to safeguard judicial independence not only cover judges, but also prosecutors. States must provide them with stability in their positions as a consequence of the fundamental role they play in access to justice. In this sense, it is necessary that both judges and prosecutors have an adequate appointment process, protection against external pressures and tenure in office,” he explained in a statement.
“The IACHR is concerned about the ambiguity of said figure since neither the law nor the Constitution specify punishable conduct and its corresponding consequences. On repeated occasions, he has called for delimiting it to ensure objectivity and impartiality, respecting the principle of legality and ensuring the separation and balance of powers,” he added.