the vice president Cristina Kirchner charged again this Monday, August 29 against the prosecutor Diego Luciani and from his Twitter account shared a video in which Daniel Erbettaa member of the Santa Fe Supreme Court, discredits the investigation known as Public workin which the head of the Senate has requested a sentence of 12 years in prison and lifelong disqualification from holding public office.
Erbetta has an extensive career as a specialist in criminal law. In addition to being judge of the Supreme Court of Santa Fe since December 2007, He is also a professor of criminal law at the National University of Rosario (UNR), director of the Department of Criminal Law and the specialization course in criminal law at the same university. Along the same lines, he was dean of the Faculty of Law and general secretary of the UNR.
Who is Diego Luciani, the prosecutor who targeted Cristina Kirchner in the Public Works case
The magistrate has origin in the Radical Civic Union (UCR) and was proposed to the Supreme Court of Santa Fe by Governor Jorge Obaidalthough he finally formally entered the highest provincial court during the management of the socialist Hermes Binner.
He was also a member of the Comprehensive Reform Commission of the 2006/2007 Penal Code. Likewise, he taught courses at universities in the country and abroad, wrote several books and articles on criminal law, criminal procedure and criminal policy. Before becoming a judge, he was a lawyer for many years.
Erbetta’s statements
After the repercussion that Cristina Kirchner gave her by sharing a speech of hers, Erbetta spoke with radio AM750. “As a law professor and as a judge of a superior court, it fills me with a little concern because it is part of a series of situations that involve the federal justice system and it seems to me that Argentine citizens should not allow them to naturalize,” he said. .
In that line, he added: “I only speak for what I have seen on television and what I have been able to find out through what the media reveal. And everything allows me to put out a warning signal, because If we want to build a strong democracy and if we want to live in a rule of law, we must respect the rules of the game, no matter who is on the other side”.
“And in this process what one can visualize is that there are situations that, I hope, the court can correct at the time of ruling, because they are not the most appropriate. And one feels obliged to say it: I have a commitment to teaching for more than 35 years, so to explain to my students what due process is and then they see what is happening, well, It’s like for them to go into some kind of crisis a little, right?”he pointed.
On the other hand, he also criticized the national and provincial government for “the lack of commitment” in the situation of burning and fires in the Parana Delta.
Daniel Erbetta’s presentation on the Road cause
The former president first shared the jurist’s resume and attached a 15-minute video in which Erbetta questions the judicial process of the case: “In the video of the following tweet you are going to listen to Dr. Daniel Erbetta talk about the oral trial of “Roadway”. Who is he? Look at his CV”.
In the interview to a Rosario television program, Erbetta marked five questionable points that he observed during the round of allegations that the prosecutor Luciani gave and that would compromise “principles of a rule of law.”
They warn that the verdict against Cristina Kirchner could be brought forward
The 5 points with which Erbetta defended Cristina Kirchner.
– principle of innocence. “We are hearing that the defendant must prove his innocence. In a law school, someone who said this obviously does not pass the matter.”
– Inadmissibility of evidence. “In an oral trial, the evidence must be incorporated in a timely manner and an impartial court must assess not only the validity, but also the relevance of that evidence. I cannot bring an argument out the window. This is a question of a university degree exam “.
– Impartiality of the judge. “There is international jurisprudence here, from the National Supreme Court, there are constitutional principles. Do you think that this court can handle the trial of the Military Juntas? What legitimacy can judges who were part of the same soccer team, who competed against teams with people linked to politics, clearly at odds with the defendants? After being questioned, they appear on television with a mate, identified with the Liverpool team, in a clear provocation that would deserve, in Federal Justice, the action of a Court of Ethics”.
– orality. “The trials are oral, they are not read trials. We have witnessed a read trial process, not an oral trial. Go to the province of Santa Fe to see if any prosecutor is reading a script, as it was read in this trial. It is the opposite of orality”.
– Rights of the accused. “Deny the accused the possibility of testifying? If I submit a student of the faculty to these five questions, which do not imply compromising my opinion on the merits of the matter, but rather imply an examination of criminal procedural law. I assure you of that student will have to study hard to retake the subject”.
ED
You may also like