The highest court decided to remove Ángela Vivanco using as arguments her actions in the so-called Belarus plot, her intervention in appointments and her relationship with Luis Hermosilla.
The Plenary Session of the Supreme Court, unanimously and in an unprecedented event in the last 23 years, decreed the removal of Minister Ángela Vivancofor bad behavior in the exercise of his position.
The day began with the presentation of Vivanco’s defense, personified by lawyer Cristóbal Osorio, who responded to the charges in his removal notebook, before the plenary session of the highest court, led by Ricardo Blanco, and who It had among its members those also questioned Jean Pierre Matus, Mario Carroza and María Teresa Letelier.
In their verdict, they made it clear that “the set of antecedents gathered and the facts that have been possible to verify, allow us to determine and conclude that Minister Ángela Vivanco Martínez engaged in behavior that affects the principles of independence, impartiality, probity, integrity and transparency that govern the members of the judiciary and that, of course, take precedence over his right to immovability, having seriously compromised the foundations of the Rule of Law with their bad behavior.”
Among the arguments put forward by the Supreme Court to determine the removal of the head of the Third Chamber of the highest court are the following:
The Belarusian Doll Plot
In its resolution, the Supreme Court detailed that, regarding the plot call Belarusian Dollboth “the report prepared by the Ethics Commission and the minutes sent by a rapporteur of this Court, and the review of the processing in the SITSUP computer system, allow us to establish that The minister had an inadequate participation in them, having taken steps so that the room was aware of the order not to innovate and of the merits of the appeal filed in the first case already referred to, without the President of the Supreme Court – of that time – having issued the respective resolution.
“Subsequently, he ordered the issuance of a resolution attempting to validate knowledge of the substance of the matter without the prior decree ordering an accounting. In the other two cases of the Belaz Movitec SpA Consortium, knowing that the criterion of the Chamber consisted of the preparation of the projects for ruling in accordance with the order of seniority, “Minister Mrs. Vivanco demanded that the rapporteur sign the sentence quickly, despite the existence of other older cases to be resolved.”added the opinion.
In this line, It was confirmed that Ángela Vivanco pressured rapporteurs to “speed up certain draft rulings,” so her behavior “reveals irregularities in the processing of cases through undue pressure exerted on lower-ranking officials.” in the Primary Rank, exceeding with his conduct the ministerial performance that corresponds to him in his capacity as judge.”
Intervention in appointment of positions and competitions
The Supreme Court reported on the actions of the magistrate to intervene in a series of appointments and competitions, what was graphed in the last appointment process for the position of National Prosecutor, where “his partner participated in efforts to have the applicant Mr. Carlos Palma withdraw in favor of another candidate in exchange for a doctorate and a future position in a regional prosecutor’s office in Santiago, he carried out personal and direct proceedings before the National Prosecutor, demonstrating, with said conduct, which was not indifferent to the facts attributed to Mr. Gonzalo Migueles.”
Regarding the contest to be the Real Estate Curator of Viña del Mar and Concón“the minister acknowledged in her report the existence of conversations with some ministers of the Court of Appeals of Valparaíso, regarding whom she is her hierarchical superior, in which she was consulted about who could vote, which is lacking in plausibility.”
“On the other hand, the communications reported in the chats sent by the Public Ministry reveal an intention to intervene in competitions for positions in this Supreme Court, managing calls and meetings in support, and also against certain candidates, with the purpose of obtaining, according to their statements, the “take over” of the Third Chamber. The above shows a pattern of conduct that deviates from the good behavior required for a minister of the Supreme Court of Justice, by trying to form networks of influence, proceeding incompatible with the position,” he explained.
Ángela Vivanco’s chats with Luis Hermosilla
The Plenary had words to the questioned chats between the minister of the Supreme Court and the lawyer Luis Hermosilla, investigated and in preventive detention for the Audios casewhich reveal “his willingness to alter the composition of a chamber of this Court to hear a specific case at the request of a lawyer from the plaza (Hermosilla), to make procedural recommendations and to provide information concerning cases in process, especially one related to the Carabineros of Chile and the Armed Forces.”
Regarding Vivanco’s justification of its conversations with Hermosilla, appealing that it was a “simple conversation that had no legal effect,” the highest court responded that “The level of confidence in their communications and the tenor of their responses deviate from the behavior of the judiciary and the principles of independence and impartiality that inform it.”
“The remaining communications about cases in progress or rulings handed down by this court cannot be described as simple conversations between legal professionals and/or academics, as stated in her report, since, once Mrs. Vivanco took office as minister , the condition of such, should have been the central axis according to which to conduct her behavior, avoiding alluding to or giving opinions of a legal nature in certain matters to lawyers of the forum, since in her jurisdictional role she was called to resolve conflicts of a similar nature,” he explained. .