Judge Casanello Dismisses Patricia Bullrich as Plaintiff in Case Investigating Picketers for Extortion

judge sebastian casanello This Wednesday he refused to accept it complainant To the Security Minister, Patricia Bullrich, The matter is being investigated Extortion and coercion of picketing groups And that resulted in a raid last Monday. “The protected legal rights and effects of the alleged conduct indicate that in legal terms the Minister cannot be considered particularly offended. Nor should we take our eyes off him It is not enough to allege that facts ‘causing serious harm to the entire nation’ are being investigated here, “Well, that alone does not make him competent to file a complaint,” the magistrate said.

“The Public Prosecutor’s Office of the country – in this case represented by Prosecutor (Gerardo) Polisita – is the body in charge of promoting the actions of justice in defense of legality and the general interests of society, in accordance with constitutional and legal norms and which, In particular, all federal crimes and those general crimes committed within the limits of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires constitute public criminal actions,” the magistrate warned in the decision, with which he agreed. Infobay.

Ministry“It is not a party: it is the branch executing the orders of judges and prosecutors, in accordance with the law and institutional design.”

According to information received from the Security Ministry, there will be no appeal against the decision and it will remain final.

Yesterday, Bullrich, with the legal sponsorship of that ministry’s national director, Fernando Soto, requested to be joined as a plaintiff in the investigation. He said his portfolio was the complainant in this matter, as calls made on Line 134 helped receive complaints from people who felt unduly forced to attend certain demonstrations, such as the march held on 22 December 2023. Could have done.’ ,

In its statement, the ministry explained that it had a party role “based on the crimes of serious threats, extortion and deceiving the state” and pointed out that Article 22 bis of the Law on Security extends the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Security in everything. Have installed. With regard to ‘the guarantee within the framework of internal security, the protection of the freedom, life and property of the inhabitants, their rights and the full legality of the institutions of the democratic system’.

However, the judge reviewed the conditions for accepting a request to be considered as a plaintiff and highlighted that “the central thing to be borne in mind in order to be admitted in that capacity in criminal proceedings is that of a ‘particularly offended’ person. quality is; which is specific to the person who is presented in a singular, personal, special and direct way to the harm or danger caused by the crime.”

Casanello highlighted that “the procedural object defined by the representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (report dated April 11, 2024) by the need to investigate the accused includes incidents that he described as crimes of serious threats, extortion and fraud. And he added: “The protection of legal rights and the effects of the alleged conduct show that from a legal point of view the Minister cannot be considered particularly offended Nor should we ignore the fact that it is not enough to allege that facts ‘causing serious harm to the nation as a whole’ are being investigated here, as this alone does not enable the nation to lodge a complaint. “

The judge cited a decision of the Supreme Court, which stated that “the notions of Art. 4° of Law 17,516 (as amended by Law 19,539) cannot be conceived independently of the actions attributed to the body that Intends to play the role of plaintiff in criminal proceedings, because otherwise all State representatives would have sufficient authority to file a complaint is for the reasons mentioned there, which, after thinking about its consequences for the progress of cases, seem absurd. is unacceptable.

After saying that the Prosecutor is the representative of the Polità to act on behalf of the interests of society, Casanello said that “to exercise his functions, as is the case with judges, he has to have the help of the Ministry of Security, from whom the police forces depend” and that this position places that portfolio “in an extremely important position but is inconsistent with plaintiff’s intended role.”

“It is not a party: it is, by law and institutional design, the branch that executes the orders of judges and prosecutors,” He warned. “The forces dependent on the Ministry operate here in cooperation with the process of justice and its great goal (they are not external subjects). The Argentine Federal Police carried out investigative tasks ordered by the Prosecutor’s Office and the court, was designated to directly listen to ordered telephone interceptions and is still carrying out the measures assigned to it (such as house seizures during Extracting information from electronic devices (records),” he said. But at the same time “the witness protection program activated by this court decision depends on the Ministry of Security. “Such works of extraordinary gravity and value cannot be undertaken by a person with partial interest.”