2024-04-14 13:44:56
The Court of Appeals of Santiago declared admissible the appeal for reconsideration by lawyer Mario Vargas, who seeks to prevent the CDE from accessing Hermosilla’s WhatsApp.
A week ago the lawyer Mario Vargas filed an appeal for protection before the Court of Appeals of Santiago to prevent the State Defense Council (CDE) from accessing Luis Hermosilla’s chats. This Wednesday, the court of appeal declared it admissible.
In the first instance, the appeal had been rejected by the same court last Friday, April 5, after decreeing that there was no undoubted right at risk.
Faced with this situation, Mario Vargas reinstated the appeal, and it was determined to declare it admissible. The Court’s determination details that “Whoever appeals at this stage of admissibility, with the precision made, manages to satisfy the requirement of indicating facts that may constitute a violation of constitutional guarantees.“.
In addition to this, the first chamber of the Court requested reports from the CDE and the Public Ministry, for which said organizations will have a period of five days to send the documents. In addition, they will have to derive all the antecedents that made Mario Vargas go to justice. Thus, The ruling annuls the resolution of April 5.
Why did lawyer Mario Vargas request that his chats with Hermosilla not be handed over to the CDE?
Lawyer Mario Vargas in his presentation before the Court of Appeals of Santiago, argued that if the Prosecutor’s Office handed over the chats to the State Defense Council, their constitutional guarantees would be violated.
“Access to my private conversations, by the Public Ministry and the consequent request of the State Defense Council, constitute illegal acts that disturb and threaten, respectively, my constitutional guarantees of equality before the law, the inviolability of private communications and my right to honor and privacy,” he stated.
Continuing along this line, he maintained that the CDE “cannot assume powers to study the 770,000 pages that the extraction report has. since not all of them are related to illegal acts nor do only public officials participate in them, as is my case.”
To which he added: “That criterion alone should deter the Council from accessing the entire report, since, in my particular case, “They do not have the legitimacy to justify the harmful intervention in my fundamental rights.”
The appeal of Vargas, the plaintiff lawyer in the case against Daniel Jadue for Popular Pharmacies, maintains that there has been stigmatization with respect to those who have had conversations with Hermosilla, which influences “directly on the honor and prestige of a professional“.