Observation Day 4
Observatory for Justice of the Guapinol River Defenders
Read the other observation days here.
More information about the Observatory here.
Follow us on Twitter to stay up to date: https://twitter.com/ObJusGuapinol
Date: December 10, 2021
Important points: Resolution of the Appeal for Reinstatement. Request for clarification of the resolution. Resolution of Disqualification and Nullity. Admission to the challenge and transfer to the La Ceiba Court of Appeals.
The parts: Presence of the Sentencing Court, of the parties and of the other persons who have been authorized. According to article 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), the trial will be carried out continuously, with the opportunity to intervene in it.
Sentencing Court of Trujillo, Colón.
Presiding Judge Franklin Marvin Arauz Santos
Judge Ricardo Geovanny Rodríguez Barahona
Judge Henry Geovany Duarte Zaldivar
Kenia Veliza Oliva Cardona on behalf of Jeremías Martínez Días
Heriberto Efrain Ramirez Cisneros representing Ewen Alexander Cedillo and José Abelino Cedillo
Carlo Antonio Jimenez Borjas representing Porfirio Sorto Cedillo
Edy Alexander Tabora on behalf of José Daniel Márquez Márquez
Mario René Rojas on behalf of Orbin Nahun Hernández
Omar Menjivar Rosales on behalf of Arnold Javier Alemán Soriano
Rodolfo Zamora representing Kelvin Alejandro Romero
Prosecutor Karen Edith Martinez Guardado
Prosecutor Humberto José Gonzales Ferrera
Miguel Lara; Esquire
Steve Fajardo; Esquire
Summary of hearing proceedings:
Resolution of Appeal for Reinstatement.
Today the appeal for reconsideration was presented by the defense, against the resolution issued yesterday by the Court, which admitted an extension of facts and the accusation presented by the Public Ministry, a resolution that aggravates the situation of the Guapinol River Defenders.
Starting today, the defendants will defend themselves against the following crimes:
-Crime of Unjust Deprivation of Liberty against José Santos Corea
-Crime of Aggravated Arson against José Santos Corea
-Crime of Aggravated Arson against Inversiones Los Pinares Company
-Crime of Aggravated Damages against Inversiones los Pinares Company.
The extension to this new crime has been admitted regardless of the personal authorization of the victims, a requirement established by article 26 of the Criminal Procedure Code - a crime of public action of a particular instance. So far, there is no authorization from the Legal Representatives of Inversiones Los Pinares to expand this accusation. An annulment was also filed against this resolution, because it was done in breach of the provisions established in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding this crime.
An annulment was also filed against this resolution, because it was done in breach of the provisions established in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding this crime. Nullity that was also declared inadmissible by the Court, establishing that resolutions can only be challenged through appeals.
Recusal of Judges
On November 24, 2021, a complaint was filed against judges Ricardo Geovanny Rodríguez Barahona and Franklin Marvin Arauz Santos after issuing an unfair and arbitrary resolution in a hearing to review measures, facts that may constitute the crime of consistent judicial malfeasance. In the violation of due process and limitation or impediment of certain fundamental rights, this complaint was presented by seven of the defenders accused in this process.
After hearing the resolution by the Court and requesting clarification, the defense initially presented a challenge against the Court, arguing its lack of impartiality in the resolution of the motion for reconsideration and also the precept that there is a prior complaint, filed on November 24, which outlines facts that significantly affect the impartiality of the process.
These actions by the defense are based on the Constitution of the Republic, Article 90, which establishes "No one can be tried, except by a competent judge or court, with the formalities, rights and guarantees that the law establishes," moreover, the Criminal Procedure Code, states in article 83 (2), "They are legitimate causes of challenge: being or having been accused, denounced or prosecuted by any of the parties as the author or accomplice of a crime or misdemeanor."
The recusal action was initially dismissed by the court, with an erroneous reasoning, which indicated that they were not at the appropriate procedural moment since the incidents stage had not started, although the Criminal Procedure Code indicates that the A challenge will be made "when a remedy has been exercised", a provision that was met in this case.
The recusal action was initially dismissed by the court, with an erroneous reasoning, which signaled that they were not at the appropriate procedural moment because the incidents stage had not started, although the Criminal Procedure Code indicates that a challenge can be made "when a remedy has been exercised", a provision that was met in this case.
When it was in the incident stage, the defense presented the challenge again, which was admitted for processing, to be transferred to the La Ceiba Court of Appeals.
AS AN OBSERVATORY, WE ARE CONCERNED TO HAVE WITNESSED IN THE FIRST STAGES OF THE TRIAL: RESOLUTIONS WITHOUT DUE MOTIVATION, AN EXTENSION OF THE ACCUSATION THAT ATTENDS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF DEFENSE, DUE PROCESS AND OTHERS; THE GUAPINOL RIVER DEFENDERS MUST BE JUDGED WITH FAIRNESS, INDEPENDENCE AND WITH TOTAL RESPECT FOR THEIR RIGHTS.
Regarding the Public Ministry, we are concerned that their actions do not represent the principle of objectivity that should govern their actions because within their arguments they have made erroneous statements about legal provisions to try to limit the rights of the Guapinol River Defenders.
We are concerned that in the opening of incidents stage the Public Ministry will propose a new protected witness with the evidentiary purpose of "proving that the defendants carried firearms and fired shots, as a result of those shots, they wounded a young male."
We request that the publicity of the trial be respected in each comment of the process, since as observers we consider it of vital importance to know each of the moments in the development of the trial in order to have a clear perspective on the facts.
REGARDING THE CHALLENGE, WE HOPE THAT IT WILL BE PROCESSED WITH THE GREATEST CELERITY AND THAT THE FACTS INDICATED IN THE COMPLAINT PRESENTED AGAINST TWO OF THE JUDGES OF THE TRUJILLO SENTENCING COURT WILL BE INVESTIGATED.