Within hours of giving his decision on the request for 36 months of preventive detention against several people involved in the case known ‘Waykis in the Shadow’, Judge Richard Concepción Carhuancho, from the First Preparatory Investigation Court of the National Superior Court of Specialized Criminal Justice (CSNJPE), read the expression of the technical defenses Nicanor Boluarte and Jorge Ortiz Marreros, which he rejected in all its extremes.
After referring to the crimes charged, the judge referred to the five arguments presented by the lawyer of the brother of President Dina Boluarte, Luis Vivanco, who revealed, during the hearing, that he was unable to communicate with his client. “The technical defense shows that the statements given Teodoro Berru Zurita y Victor Torres Merino They should not be taken into account because they are not confirmed,” stated Concepción Carhuancho.
In this regard, he indicated that he would reject the request since the stories of both are credible, since they have commented in detail on significant aspects referring to the fact that Boluarte Zegarra had decided a political party that a creation in which legislators and sub-supervisors would be instrumental. , forcing them to fill out party cards, and which are supported by various elements of conviction. “It has been observed that even if they were not up to their duties, they were dismissed from their jobs,” he said.
he second reason pointed out by the defense that There was no communication between Ortiz Marreros and Nicanor Boluarte, which was also denied. since “it has been noted in the statement given by Berrú that he saw the communication between the two, but not only that; but that most of Boluarte’s instructions towards Ortiz Marreros were made through Torres Merino, which he reported and supported the flow of communication.”
Nicanor Boluarte: The judges resume the preventive detention hearing for the ‘Waykis in the shadow’ case at 9 am. (Capture: Justice TV)Regarding the fact that the defense suggests that digital evidence should not be trusted, obtained by open source, was also set aside because the information extracted was consistent with other elements of the conviction. For example, it matches the telephone numbers of intermediaries.
Regarding the fourth argument, in which the defense pointed out that the assumption and permanence in office is not an advantage, “we have already given a broad answer that benefit or advantage inherent in the crime of bribery need not be limited to the patrimonial nature and on that
As a last point, they pointed out that the crime of influence cannot be pelted because it is not incorporated in the buyer influence. The judge pointed out, however, that “the fact that one of the subjects who intervened in the case is not incorporated in any way does not detract from the action being attributed to the person being investigated.”
“What is being considered here is the action taken by the investigation Nicanor Boluarte initiated by the middle management, Torres Merino, so that he influenced the appointment of the people he recruited,” he explained.
After that, he referred to the arguments presented by the defense of Jorge Ortiz Marreros, which had four of them: that the process of appointing supervisors and sub-supervisors was regular, that some statements should not be taken, that the digital evidence is not reliable. and that the person being investigated would not be involved in the facts of the investigation because he is not a member of the political party. As in the case of Boluarte, they were all rejected.
Regarding the first point, the rejection is due to the fact that there is evidence that it was not regular, but that entry by Boluarte Zegarra and Torres Merino, which has been confirmed. Regarding the latter, he stated that it is also rejected because the statements of Berrú and Torres Merino are consistent with each other and that there are additional elements, as well as abundant evidential material which confirms these details.
“Even Boluarte Zegarra himself monitored whether or not they fulfilled what they promised and whether this happened in one of those cases,” he stated.
The third argument was also rejected “because there is no official expertise from validity nor does it exempt those elements of the conviction from being evaluated and evaluated by their own content flowing from the same reliability considering that their reliability same thing. the content matches other elements. In addition, the phone number answers to someone in the circle of trust.”
Regarding the last point he mentioned that his militancy is not involvedbut that he was arrested because Torres Merino made all the appointments he made with the consent of Boluarte Zegarra. That is to say, served the interests of this alleged criminal organization“.
“Suspicions have been brought to an end about the crimes attributed to Boluarte and Jorge Luis Ortiz Marreros. In the case of Nicanor there is a high probability that he will participate in a criminal organization, influence
peddling and active generic bribery; while Ortiz is accused of criminal organization and improper passive bribery,” he concluded.
How could the outcome of the ‘Waykis in the Shadow’ case impact political accountability in Peru?
Time.news Interview with Legal Expert Dr. Maria Gonzalez on the ‘Waykis in the Shadow’ Case
Editor (Time.news): Welcome, Dr. Gonzalez! Thank you for joining us today. The recent decision by Judge Richard Concepción Carhuancho concerning the ‘Waykis in the Shadow’ case has stirred quite a bit of public interest. Can you provide us with an overview of the case and its significance?
Dr. Maria Gonzalez: Thank you for having me! The ‘Waykis in the Shadow’ case is significant as it involves allegations of political corruption within the administration of President Dina Boluarte, particularly focusing on figures close to her, like her brother, Nicanor Boluarte, and Jorge Ortiz Marreros. The allegations center around bribery and influence peddling, where public resources were purportedly misused for political advantage.
Editor: It appears the judge rejected several arguments put forth by the defendants. What were some of the key points that the defense raised, and how did the judge respond?
Dr. Gonzalez: The defense presented five main arguments. They claimed that certain testimonies should not be considered credible, primarily from witnesses Teodoro Berrú and Victor Torres Merino, arguing that they were uncorroborated. However, the judge found their testimonies credible, citing detailed accounts concerning Boluarte’s involvement in orchestrating a political party framework under improper circumstances.
Editor: That’s quite a strong rebuttal. Another argument from the defense was concerning communication between Nicanor Boluarte and Jorge Ortiz Marreros. Can you elaborate on how the judge addressed this issue?
Dr. Gonzalez: Certainly. The defense argued that there was no communication between the two; however, the judge rejected this claim, referencing Berrú’s testimony that clearly indicated communication was happening, including via intermediaries. This shows the judge’s reliance on direct evidence from credible witnesses to establish the facts.
Editor: Digital evidence has also come under scrutiny; the defense claimed it should not be trusted. What did the judge conclude regarding this evidence?
Dr. Gonzalez: The judge dismissed the defense’s concerns about digital evidence, indicating that it was corroborated by other reliable sources. He emphasized that it matched with the phone numbers involved in the investigation, suggesting that the digital footprint provided critical links between the individuals implicated in the case.
Editor: There seems to be a broader theme of accountability emerging from the judge’s reasoning. How do you see this impacting political integrity in Peru moving forward?
Dr. Gonzalez: This case represents a pivotal moment for political integrity in Peru. The rejection of the defense’s arguments signals a judicial willingness to hold powerful figures accountable, which could instill greater public trust in the legal system. However, it also underscores the need for ongoing scrutiny of political conduct, as allegations of corruption can undermine democratic processes.
Editor: As the situation develops, what should we keep an eye on? Are there any implications for the broader political landscape in Peru?
Dr. Gonzalez: Absolutely. As the court proceedings unfold, we should watch how these legal determinations affect public confidence in the Boluarte administration. Moreover, political opposition may leverage this case to rally support against the current government if further evidence of corruption emerges. This case could set a precedent for how corruption is addressed in coming years, influencing both political culture and legal standards in Peru.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Gonzalez, for your insights. This is undoubtedly a complex issue, and the implications are significant. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with us today.
Dr. Gonzalez: Thank you! It was my pleasure. I look forward to seeing how this case continues to evolve.