Thursday’s day, Lawyer Juan Pablo Hermosilla revealed a list of prosecutors and judges of the Judiciary who held conversations with his brother Luiswho is serving preventive detention for the Audios Case.
In this regard, Hermosilla expressed that “We are not delivering the messages directly, What we are saying is that there was contact on the approximate date with said prosecutor and that this has to do with issues of a professional nature or with lobbying, or with the issue of the judicial appointment.”
In this line, Luis Hermosilla’s lawyer considers that there is no type of irregularity in the conversations of these representatives with the main person involved in the Audios Case.
“Let’s go to the most delicate part, which is the appointments… If we take, for example, the issue of Lorena Parra, there I believe that there is an issue of public interest, but what it shows is a system that is working poorly. This system of looking for contacts, people who recommend you to obtain judicial appointments, but it is the system that is working poorly,” he said.
Given these first revelations, various experts and parliamentarians expressed their disappointment in Juan Pablo Hermosilla’s position, since He limited himself to providing names without specifying the nature of the conversations with his brother, in addition to his refusal to answer whether the national prosecutor Ángel Valencia gave details to Andrés Chadwick of the cases linked to Sebastián Piñera, how he raised it in his protection appeal.
“Television show” and “misstep”: the reactions to the first list of Juan Pablo Hermosilla
Faced with this episode, The independent deputy and head of the IND-PPD committee, Camila Musante, described it as “a television show” the delivery of the list of chats and contacts of Luis Hermosilla with judges and prosecutors made by his brother Juan Pablo.
As he explained, “instead of releasing the chats and showing Chile who are involved in this network of corruption and power trafficking, What he does is read a list of names of prosecutors, judges and ministers without giving any specific details. Without proof and without evidence of how they are part of this network and this network of corruption.”
For this reason, he demanded “that the chats be released and that the evidence that would supposedly involve our institutions be shown, neither more nor less the Public Ministry and the Judiciary, which are in charge of prosecuting crimes.”
“The rest, Mr. Juan Pablo Hermosilla, the only thing that is, “It’s a television show.” concluded the parliamentarian.
A similar position was raised by the former prosecutor Carlos Gajardo, that in conversation with CNN Chile he assured that, a priori, there is no crime for a chat that Luis Hermosilla may have with a member of the Public Ministry or the Judiciary.
“The problem with this thesis is that Mr. Luis Hermosilla is not in prison for having favored the nomination of a prosecutor or a judge. In fact, there is no accusation in the formalization that the Prosecutor’s Office has made for these events. Mr. Luis Hermosilla is imprisoned for tax crimes (…), for having participated together with the Sauer brothers in the Factop company in the crime of money laundering (…) and for a very serious crime of bribery,” Gajardo stressed.
Meanwhile, Deputy Jaime Naranjo (PS) asserted that Juan Pablo Hermosilla’s intention is to “intimidate” to whom, despite having had some conversations with their brother, are doing exemplary work in their positions.
“Undoubtedly, behind this complaint, one sees that they want to intimidate both the Public Ministry and the Judiciary. This reiteration that involves the National Prosecutor, clearly, puts him in a complex and difficult situation,” he stated on radio Biobío.
This theory is supported by his counterpart Jorge Brito (FA), who reiterated that his intention “is to intimidate and we call on the prosecutor (Lorena) Parra to persevere, since in her hands is the possibility of doing justice in a case of corruption that outraged the entire country.”
What are the potential implications of the Audios Case on public trust in the judiciary in Chile?
Interview: The Audios Case and Judicial Integrity — A Discussion with Expert Legal Analyst Dr. Patricia Morales
Time.news Editor: Welcome to Time.news, Dr. Morales! Today, we’re diving into the intricacies of the recent revelations surrounding the Audios Case. Lawyer Juan Pablo Hermosilla has released a list of conversations involving his brother Luis, who is currently facing preventive detention. How significant are these revelations in terms of judicial integrity?
Dr. Patricia Morales: Thank you for having me. This situation is quite significant. The release of names alone, without context or evidence, raises serious questions about transparency in the justice system. It highlights an ongoing concern about how connections can influence judicial appointments and decisions.
Time.news Editor: Hermosilla claims that there’s no irregularity in these conversations, framing them as part of a flawed system where recommendations are sought for judicial positions. Do you think this is a valid point?
Dr. Patricia Morales: While he points to structural issues that certainly exist, it’s crucial to differentiate between networking and possible corruption. A system that relies on personal connections for judicial appointments is inherently flawed. If these conversations involved lobbying or influence peddling, that’s a different, more serious matter.
Time.news Editor: The reaction from various experts and parliamentarians has been quite critical, labeling Hermosilla’s approach as a “television show.” Do you think this criticism is justified?
Dr. Patricia Morales: Absolutely. The frustration expressed by lawmakers like Camila Musante is understandable. By not providing details or evidence tying the mentioned individuals to any misdeeds, Hermosilla risks trivializing an issue that deserves serious scrutiny. Without supporting documentation, the release of such names feels more like a spectacle than a legitimate ethical inquiry.
Time.news Editor: Hermosilla mentioned problems related to public interest cases, using Lorena Parra as an example. What do you make of the public interest angle he brings up?
Dr. Patricia Morales: The public interest is indeed vital here. If there are legitimate concerns about Maria Parra’s or others’ appointments, they must be rigorously examined. However, highlighting individual cases without a broader context fails to address systemic issues. The focus should be on institutional transparency and accountability, not just naming judges or prosecutors.
Time.news Editor: How do you believe these discussions impact the perception of the judiciary in Chile?
Dr. Patricia Morales: Trust in the judiciary is paramount for democracy. Revelations like these can erode public confidence, especially if constituents feel that justice can be bought or influenced through connections. It becomes imperative for the judiciary to respond proactively, reassuring the public that they operate without fear or favor.
Time.news Editor: In response to demands for evidence, what steps do you think should be taken to ensure accountability within the justice system?
Dr. Patricia Morales: Transparency must be a priority. The judiciary should establish clear protocols for sharing information and investigating allegations of misconduct. There should also be independent bodies tasked with oversight to restore faith in legal processes. These measures will ensure that conversations like those mentioned by Hermosilla don’t lead to public cynicism about the system.
Time.news Editor: Dr. Morales, thank you for your insights today. It’s clear that the situation requires careful navigation to preserve the integrity of the justice system.
Dr. Patricia Morales: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. It’s crucial we keep the conversation going for the sake of justice and accountability.