The Bicameral Commission for the Supervision of Intelligence Organizations and Activities of Congress closed the year as it began: with another counterpoint between the ruling majority and the opposition minority, and with a report that he left several questions without accurate answers on who leaked wiretapping of high political impact.
The new counterpoint was conceived during the last hours, when interpreting the last semi-annual report on how the Directorate of Judicial Assistance in Complex Crimes and Organized Crime (Dajudeco), the body that depends on the Supreme Court and is in charge of wiretapping and has a body of anti-corruption experts.
The political counterpoint led to, On the same report, government officials and opponents will draft two supplementary opinions with conflicting conclusions. Where the ruling party saw a sample more than one political, judicial and media persecution against Cristina Kirchner and related figures, the opposition saw that Dajudeco acted according to the law.
What does the Dajudeco follow-up “semi-annual report” say? Throughout 136 pages, together with its four annexes, he did not arrive at definitive conclusions about who leaked the phone conversations between the then former president and her collaborator, the current senator Oscar Parrilli, or some recordings of detainees in the Ezeiza prison for reasons of corruption.
The report does advance, however, on two of Comodoro Py’s federal judges, Ariel Lijo and Claudio Bonadio (died in February), Who they accessed those materials days before or on the same day they were broadcast on some television programs, as well as against the Federal Intelligence Agency during the management of Together for Change, although without assertively holding them responsible for these leaks.
Thus, for example, when referring to the filtration of conversations between Cristina Kirchner and Parrilli, the report recalls, “The undue dissemination of the audio took place on 01-23-2017, that is, the same day that Dajudeco made the first delivery of the transcripts and audios corresponding to the investigating judge”, alluding to Lijo.
On the contrary, the report leaves the federal judge of Lomas de Zamora better off, Federico Villena, by arguing that Dajudeco should not have given Judge Bonadio copies of the wiretaps that Villena had ordered, and later recorded additional observations on Dajudeco herself and her highest authorities: the chambermaid Martin Irurzun -whose term at the head of that office ended in February of this year- and its executive director, Juan Tomás Rodríguez Ponte.
With that report in their hands, the ruling majority of the Bicameral Commission chaired by the deputy Leopoldo Moreau (Frente de Todos) wrote a draft opinion in which it alluded to the “role played by the judicial powers in Latin America at the head of the so-called ‘judicial war’ or ‘lawfare’; that, in collusion with intelligence agencies, the media, and the powers that be, perpetrated a deliberate persecution of political leaders in the judicial field “. And it concluded that the Dajudeco became “a tool available to the highest court. [por la Corte Suprema] to supervise the criminal prosecution of the jurisdictional power “.
The pro-government majority also criticized the so-called “Corps of experts of the Judicial Power specialized in cases of corruption and crimes against the Public Administration”, which depends on the Dajudeco, for which it characterized as its discretion in selecting in which cases it intervenes and who would be the experts who would participate in each investigation.
“We are in a position to affirm,” the official majority closed its draft, that “the Dajudeco was erected as an instrument to assist in the judicial strategy, which together with the active participation of sectors of the intelligence services and in a framework of media coverage , facilitated the persecution of personalities of popular representation, with political and institutional relevance in our country “.
In the opposite direction, the minority bloc – made up of Cristian Ritondo and Sebastián García de Luca, by macroism, and Jose Manuel Cano, by the UCR- drew up their own draft of the final opinion to be attached to the semi-annual report of the Commission, with criticism of the “biased” interpretation of the facts of the ruling party and a defense of the performance of Dajudeco.
The minority even considered that the ruling party reached conclusions “guided by certain preconceptions that have not been verified in the tasks of analyzing Dajudeco’s work and that by relying only on biased opinions they could put the division of powers at risk. “.
The opposition also rejected objections to Bonadio’s access to some wiretaps. It estimated that “Dajudeco complied with the judicial requirement established by a criminal judge [en alusión a Bonadio] within the framework of the production of evidence established as a faculty in the CPPN “, and that in this way complied” with the will of the judge in charge of the intervention measure Federico Villena, who authorized Judge Bonadio to take cognizance of that information. “
In the draft of their own opinion, Ritondo, García de Luca and Cano also charged against the interpretation of the opinion by the ruling party: “It is appropriate to ask what is the meaning of the semi-annual report, when their draft opinion is not related to it. The draft opinion has no objective relationship with what was evaluated, and It seems that it is only sought with the same media propaganda to justify criminal convictions that were applied in proven and shameful cases of corruption in Argentina “.
According to the criteria of