After the Supreme Court upheld the extradition to the United States of Alvaro Cordobabrother of piety cordobahis defense stated that he will try to stop his extradition through legal recourse.
It is a guardianship that although it has not been put together because they have not been notified, it is already in the plans of the lawyers Antonio Guette and Ludy Valentina Santiago, who in this case represent the interests of Córdoba, arrested in an operation carried out on February 3 in Medellin.
Read more: (Supreme Court endorses extradition of Piedad Córdoba’s brother)
In dialogue with EL TIEMPO Güette emphasized that with this tutelage they will not try to dilate the course of this process, which now remains in the hands of the government of Gustavo Petrobut they will stop to check which fundamental right Córdoba could have been violated in order to keep it as long as possible in Colombia.
According to the decision of the Supreme Court known this Wednesday afternoon, the extradition of the brother of the senator of the Historical Pact occurs in a mixed way. In white silver, this means that one charge for which he is required was accepted by the high court, but another was not.
The one they approved was drug traffickingand the one they denied is that of carrying weaponsbecause if that crime were carried out, he would have committed it exclusively on Colombian soil.
For the defense of Córdoba, this fact is taken by them as a triumphbecause that charge for illegal possession of weapons in their opinion does not carry much weight, and is due, according to them, only to a tactic to muddy it.
The truth is that this mention of the possible carrying of machine guns appears in the documents studied by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court to make a substantive decision.
On the other hand, in response to the comment that Petro made during the campaign that if everything was in accordance with the law, he would sign the extradition of Córdoba, the lawyer Güette stated that this is the full competence of the Head of State, and that they will take advantage of what he decide.
The reference to Petro in this case occurs because Senator Piedad Córdoba, sister of the defendant, was elected to Congress through the list of the Historical Pact, a coalition led by the president. That closeness, however, would not be a obstacle to sign the shipment to New York of the detainee currently in the extraditables yard of La Picota.
This is the interview with the lawyer from Córdoba
We have a resource to make use of it, even a guardianship. Not with the intention of procrastinating, we are simply going to record.
How do you receive the guarantee of extradition of your client Álvaro Gómez?
They have not notified me, nor has the lawyer Rudy Valentina Santiagowho accompanies me in this case.
The Court endorsed the shipment for drug trafficking. How do they take the fact that they have not accepted extradition for carrying machine guns?
For us it is a total success because terrorism is being removed, which was the aggressive way in which the government at the head of the United States has been accustomed with the agents of doing entrapmentsand it is what all the extraditables who are in that case are saying loudly.
Of course there will be people who have 100% responsibility in the cases, but 90% is entrapment, hence the invitation from the new Government, not because he is Piedad Córdoba’s brother, so that definitely condition the procedure and the tests.
We recommend this article: (Supreme Court: lawsuit is denied and seven of its magistrates are saved)
I want to comment on something, in the case of Álvaro Córdoba there are two more people who are partners in the cause. Just to note this: in that case all three were captured in February, as of this August notification date expressly the Supreme Court pronouncesbut he is not doing it in the same way with Álvaro’s other two companions.
They were also asked for extradition…
Yes, but what is the root of what I am saying? That Álvaro will be in six months (he is extradited). Usually a process extradition lasts between 18 to 22 monthss, this is the second case after “Otoniel”, which was in seven months, in which the Court is considered. Now, they do it with Álvaro, but why don’t they do it with the two companions in the cause?
That is to say, why is there a choice in Álvaro, and why don’t they bring his other two companions into that process with the same dynamic? There is an inequality there.
This may interest you: (Due to the case of the ‘widow of Autorrollings’, a Meta magistrate is dismissed)
Are you going to file an appeal against this decision of the Court?
Yes, you have to file it. We are left with a resource to make use of it, even to a guardianship. Not with the intention of procrastinating, we are simply going to record. I am going to leave the notification of that court order and I am going to start designing the strategy. We have the right to appeal to the president himself, who is going to pronounce himself, and of course a guardianship. I study the subject and say what Fundamental rights they will be violated.
During the campaign, Petro said that if he found sufficient merit to sign the extradition of Álvaro Córdoba, he would do it. What do you think about it?
I cannot pronounce myself there, it is something optional of the president, he knows what he should do. Not because it is the case of Álvaro Córdoba, but because in the event that fundamental rights are being violated, he will have to pronounce. He is autonomous and independent, and I don’t want to get into that, I want to be very respectful of that decision.
On twitter: @JusticiaET
Read more Justice news