That in Jujuy one lives repressive escalation based on the criminalization of social protest it is no longer new. That thousands have been demonstrating for more than a month in rejection of the constitutional reform recently voted by the UCR and the PJ, either.
What is scandalous to date, relates the claim of the Prosecutor’s Office in the accusation attributed to the protesters, without any evidentiary and legal support. He requested that the pretrial detention for 40 days for all of them, and given the climate that exists in the province of Jujuy, according to his point of view, and events of similar characteristics do not continue to happen to those “investigated” in the case, he alluded to the fact that it was important that they remain detained, identifying them as “ringleaders”.
The 40 days of preventive detention requested for the detainees coincide almost exactly with the remaining days of the electoral campaign. There are no coincidences, but there are, there are, Morales could justify himself in this last stretch of the campaign, if he were asked about this remarkable coincidence.
The Prosecutor’s Office accuses each and every accused of being part of the arson in the legislature. Fact, on the other hand, that the vice governor himself considered “minor.” However, The most unusual thing is that there is no one identified there inside the Legislature. To get around this “problem” the prosecution stated that a collaborative criminal plan occurred here between the accused to commit crimes, in which each one had a particular intervention. Hence the “co-authorship”, despite the fact that no one identified was at the scene of the fire. The defendants put together a plan with anonymous people. A legal novelty, for history.
The expressed objective, on the other hand, aims to “neutralize” the possibility that from their status as “leaders”, they could “continue committing crimes both themselves and other people”. As well as it can make it difficult to find people not located to date.
The Argentine penal system prohibits what is known as “criminal copyright law”. Acts are pursued, not people. Saying that a person should continue to be detained as a “precaution” or to avoid future crimes or branding them as “ringleaders” for being militants or protesters, is an extremely serious and illegal foundation.
Las conspiracy theories -which Gerardo Morales generally uses to try to cover up reality- is also expressed in the use of the term “ringleader” by the Prosecutor’s Office. To criminally accuse and without evidence, that the enormous popular movement of thousands of people that is fighting against the repudiated constitutional reform in San Salvador or in the combative La Quebrada, would be being directed by a handful of people is the maximum expression of it. It is to deny the enormous struggle of the group of workers, the communities and the people of Jujuy, which is already an example for the rest of the country.
Morales will go down in history dare to accuse a people of coup plotters when he stood up against a justly totalitarian Reformation. Now it seems that the prosecution found the possible leaders of the coup, all of them plotting.
Needless to say, the prosecutor also made no reference to the numerous human rights violations in the context of repressionby the provincial police, which occurred on June 20 in the vicinity and in the provincial legislature itself, as is public knowledge. Of the empty eyes, unlicensed trucks entering houses without a warrant, of the illegal pressures, of the police officers who attacked businesses, etc., there is not a single police officer arrested and there was not a minimal reference from the prosecutor to these facts.
The different defenses shared several of the arguments, related to the non-existence of a flight risk or the hindrance in the investigation, (main requirements to keep a person deprived of their liberty in the framework of a judicial process), that there were no records in the case as to concretely link the detainees with the crimes for which they are kept in the Alto Comedero prison.
After requesting an interval, Judge provided that, given the complexity of the case, it would take 48 hours, and ordered that on Monday he would make his decision regarding preventive detention known and left the hearing without issuing the final resolution. In cases where the freedom of individuals is at stake, in particular art. 292 of the Procedural Code, does not authorize the judge to resolve some type of extension to the final resolution on preventive detention.
In this way, the defendants in the case, who legitimately exercised the right to demonstrate against the constitutional reform, have to spend two more days in detention awaiting what the judge defines.
Source: www.laizquierdadiario.com
