The federal criminal and correctional prosecutor No. 4, Carlos Stornelli, drawn to intervene in the file, issued an opinion on the complaint in the Federal Justice in the Federal Capital made by former governor Sergio Urribarri, and which was mentioned by his lawyer Fernando Mocking at the press conference this Tuesday, where he denounces the existence of a “judicial panel” that would have mounted a kind of plot against the former governor.
In her ruling, Stornelli understood that Judge María Romilda Servini “must declare herself incompetent due to the matter and the territory, and these proceedings must be sent to the relevant jurisdiction in accordance with the above,” he learned. Analysis.
In addition to classifying those who intervened in the cases against Urribarri as “judicial operators” and considering the files as “armed cases,” Urribarri’s lawyers requested cell phone information from judges, prosecutors and even the mayor of Paraná, Rosario. Romero, as well as the director of the media Analysis, Daniel Enz, to supposedly demonstrate the network between such protagonists to lead to complaints against the convicted ex-president. The defense insisted on Urribarri’s “innocence” and demanded that he remain free due to the request for preventive detention and points out that the convicted person is depressed by this whole situation. In addition, Urribarri declared before the prosecutor where the complaint was filed.
“It is clear and evident that VS lacks jurisdiction to hear them, both due to the subject matter and the territory,” said federal prosecutor Stornelli, in this Friday’s ruling.
In that order, he pointed out that “the complaint refers, purely and exclusively, to alleged illicit acts that had occurred in a foreign territorial jurisdiction -Province of Entre Ríos-, referring to judicial processes entirely carried out there, being those who are accused there as possible responsible parties.” of them, public officials at the strictly local level, members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Judicial Branch of that province.”
And he added: “On the other hand, the sole invocation by the complainant of the former performance of federal functions (such as that of Ambassador to the State of Israel), is not enough, if that were the intention, to excite Federal jurisdiction in this scope of action, since the events for which they are considered victims would be linked to alleged accusations or judicial decisions that he would have gone through in his capacity as then Governor of the Province of Entre Ríos and not on the occasion of the exercise of those federal functions.
At another point, Stornelli points out that “enabling the investigation of the events reported before this Federal Court of the City of Buenos Aires, as requested in the complaint, would imply, in my opinion, a possible and palpable impact on constitutional guarantees, among them that of the natural judge.”
After the prosecutor’s ruling, it will now be the federal judge who must decide.
