Almost five years after the social outbreak, the 7th Guarantee Court of Santiago announced the precautionary measures for the three Carabineros generals (r) for omission of illegitimate constraints.
After five days of formalization, this Thursday, October 17, the Seventh Guarantee Court of Santiago decreed the precautionary measures against the former Carabineros generals, Ricardo Yanez, Mario Rozas y Diego Olatewho are charged crimes of omission of illegitimate pressure resulting in serious injuries and homicidewithin the framework of the social outbreak of 2019.
Five years after the popular revolt in our country, the judge Cristián Sánchez determined that Yáñez, Rozas and Olate stay with national roots and biweekly signaturewhose decision is announced after the North Central Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office and the defenses agreed.
The above, in accordance with the collaboration in the investigation and the fact that they are no longer in office. However, some plaintiff lawyers questioned this treatment, since they do not believe that the accused have collaborated with the investigation. Due to this, they requested preventive detention for the three retired generals, which the magistrate rejected.
What the defenses of Ricardo Yáñez, Mario Rozas and Diego Olate said
This Wednesday the allegations concluded, where all the defense lawyers maintained that the accusation for the crime omission of illegitimate pressures It had no base. In this sense, the lawyer Nicholas Oxmansaid that both Yáñez, Rozas and Olate, applied measures during the period in question. “My client carried out a lot of actions, a cluster of actions that were intended to avoid harmful results.“, he assured.
Continuing along this line, he explained that Ricardo Yáñez together with the former Carabineros generals acted “within the scope of permitted risk“. Furthermore, he stated that “decreased the production of harmful results, the force“.
“Ceasing all forms of use of force to control public order was not possible“, nor was the specific situation in which they acted constitutive of alternative behavior in accordance with current law,” he added.
The above, considering that “It was a situation of constitutional state of exception to which the rest of the defenses have already referred and specifically my client was required to control public order in his capacity as the authority in charge of it.”
For this reason, the defense of the accused insisted that the measures of national roots and biweekly signature were proportionalsince they are not “a danger to society.”