They declare inadmissible an appeal for protection in favor of Daniel Jadue with which he sought to revoke his preventive detention

They declare inadmissible an appeal for protection in favor of Daniel Jadue with which he sought to revoke his preventive detention
They declare inadmissible an appeal for protection in favor of Daniel Jadue with which he sought to revoke his preventive detention

This Thursday, the Court of Appeals of Santiago declared inadmissible an appeal for protection filed in favor of the mayor of Recoleta, Daniel Jaduewith which He sought to revoke his preventive detention.

Let us remember that the communal chief has been serving said precautionary measure since this Monday in the Captain Yáber penitentiary annex, after being formalized for crimes of fraud, bribery and fraud against the treasury, within the framework of the Popular Pharmacies case.

Given the ruling made by the Third Guarantee Court of Santiago, the lawyer Julio César Cuadros He filed the appeal as a citizen, to annul the preventive detention against Jadue, but this did not prosper.

Also check:

From the court of appeal they maintained that “the deadline for filing the appeal, which constitutes the ordinary means of challenge, is pending, which is why It is not appropriate to admit this arbitration for processingsince they are under jurisdictional protection, and in such procedure the resources that the defense of the protected party deems appropriate must be deducted”, as stated by Emol.

Therefore, “in effect, it cannot be claimed that the amparo action becomes an instrument that encourages the anomalous and improper review of what was done by a court, under the conditions set out above, since accepting it would mean distorting both the purpose of the amparo action and the basic regularity of the procedure that governs it.”says the resolution.

It is worth mentioning that the appeal for protection presented intended for the Court to determine the precautionary measure applied to Mayor Jadue as “illegal and arbitrary, and the deprivation of my individual freedom has been disturbed and violated.”

He even maintained that “Judge Paulina Moya” conducted the formalization hearing illegally, without principle of legality, with serious ignorance on the part of the Judge, due to laziness or ignorance, of the appropriate criminal technique for the crimes committed in the o by the public administration.”

 
For Latest Updates Follow us on Google News
 

-

PREV These are the best promotions of up to 4 for 3
NEXT The Earth moves slower today