With scandal, Kirchnerism approved this Monday in Congress a report by majority that criticism the role of the Directorate of Judicial Assistance in Complex Crimes and Organized Crime (DAJuDeCO) and members of the Buenos Aires Federal Chamber and the Court. In particular, it does in the eavesdropping on Oscar Parrilli and former K officials imprisoned in Ezeiza in the framework of Operation Puf.
Since the beginning of the year, Vice President Cristina Kirchner wants to get him out of court control over that strategic wiretapping office (former SIDE OJOTA) and return it to the Attorney General’s Office. He managed to get the Senate to repeal the decree of former President Mauricio Macri that made that transfer at the beginning of the year, but did not get – until now – the necessary votes in Deputies.
Instead, you could get going a control mechanism of the Bicameral Commission for the Supervision of the Intelligence Organizations and Activities of the Congress on DAJuDeCO, which is president of the ultra K deputy Leopoldo Moreau.
In this context, the majority report critical DAJuDeCO’s actions in the cases of wiretapping to Parrilli for the cover-up of the escape of the financier of ephedrine, Ibar Pérez Corradi, to Paraguay and former K officials imprisoned in Ezeiza, such as Roberto Baratta.
At one point during the meeting of the bicameral commission, the former AFI head K complained about the leak to the media of the eavesdropping on conversations between him and Cristina between 2016 and 2017 and held the court office responsible for the dissemination of the recordings.
The wiretaps of Parrilli’s phone had been ordered by judges Ariel Lijo and María Servini. Then, the deputy of Together for Change, José Cano (UCR-Tucumán) asked for the floor, according to parliamentary sources consulted by Clarion:
– Deputy Cano: The broadcast of the wiretaps was not from DAJuDeco. It could be one of the parties that had access to the files in the courts.
– Senator Oscar Parrilli: You are a bankrupt.
– Cano: I am not answering you because of the Christmas spirit, Senator. I refer to the public considerations of the vice president on whether he appears (in which he treated him as “asshole”).
The meeting almost got out of hand due to the insults but the spirits calmed down and each sector voted for its own report. And Cano insisted that this body “Maintained the chain of custody” on wiretapping, according to the procedures provided by the Court in two agreed.
Instead, the report of the K attributed to that court office the journalistic leak “Improper” of the listening of those two cases that had a lot of media coverage.
Furthermore, the official document says “the role played by the judicial powers in Latin America at the head of the so-called“ judicial war ”or“ lawfare ”must be contextualized; that, in collusion with intelligence agencies, the media, and the powers that be, Perpetrated a deliberate persecution of political leaders in the judicial field”. In other words, the DAJuDeCO would then be another leg of the K story of Lawfare.
With regard to the functioning of DAJuDeCO, adds the K report, “after the detailed analysis of the areas of the body reflected in the report in question, we observe how the Directorate was constituted, no longer in an instance of mere administrative support upon request. of the magistrates, but also in a tool at the disposal of the highest court to supervise the criminal prosecution of the jurisdictional power”.
The Bicameral report criticism to the president of the Federal Chamber and director of DAJuDeCO until the end of last year, Martín Irurzun, and to the members of the Court, Ricardo Lorenzetti and Carlos Rosenkrantz.
Instead, a minority report signed by Cano and his bench colleagues, Cristian Ritondo and Sebastián García De Luca defends the role of DAJuDeCO. And he affirms that “some arguments that emerge from the semi-annual report are guided by certain preconceptions that have not been verified in the tasks of analyzing DAJUDECO’s work and that by not relying on more than in biased opinions could put the division of powers at risk”.
Also, Bicameral Commission “Has already been issued” on case No. 481/16-Parrilli- case, “product of an audit carried out to DAJUDECO by UBATEC, at the request of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation itself and in which the work of the Directorate was highlighted and it was established that there was no type of responsibility on the part of the Management”In the media leaks.
On the other hand, the K report among its findings understands that “became inappropriate the delivery to Bonadio of the copy of the wiretaps (of Operative Puf), without the proper support ”by that office, after making an analysis of the steps that the Buenos Aires judge followed to have the wiretaps and open a case.
In February 2019, when the Ks launched Operation Puf, the leader of the Civic Coalition Elisa Carrió denounced on Twitter that “an operation was coming against the prosecutor Carlos Stornelli and the cause of the Cuadernos de las Bribes.”
Then he made a complaint based on a couple of copies of the wiretapping report in the Ezeiza prison, where ten days before Pedro Etchebest’s complaint, they were already talking about the presentation before federal judge Alejo Ramos Padilla.
Then, Judge Claudio Bonadio asked the judge of Lomas de Zamora, Federico Villena, for a copy, who had ordered the AFI to tap the public telephones of the Ezeiza prison to investigate whether the King of Ephedrine, Roberto Segovia, was still handling the traffic. of drugs. Villena authorized Bonadio in writing to have a copy.
On the other hand, the minority report maintains that this criticism for the delivery of the eavesdropping of Operative Puf “is nothing more than an opinion without any legal rigor”. Fundamentally, because requesting evidence is an “application of powers granted by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Nation in its article 236” to the judges.