2024-09-29 12:33:23
In addition to this, Judge Daniel Urrutia has three days to deliver a report explaining why he was not disqualified from authorizing the search of the suspended Supreme Court minister.
After the defense of the suspended Supreme Court minister, Angela Vivancorequested the judge’s disqualification in his case Daniel Urrutiathe Court of Appeals of Santiago ordered the head of the 7th Guarantee Court of Santiago to “refrain from intervening in the respective cause until this incident is resolved.”
The above, following the request presented by Vivanco’s defense against the magistrate, under the argument of the “existence of resentment or enmity towards my client.” This in the midst of the investigation of the crimes of influence peddling, incompatible negotiation and bribery, within the framework of the Audio Casewhere the chats with Luis Hermosilla show a series of crossed favors.
Considering the facts for which the suspended Supreme Court minister is accused, the guarantee judge authorized the Public Ministry to carry out a new seizure at the home of the highest court judge, where a phone, his daughter’s computer and a tablet.
The arguments of Ángela Vivanco’s defense to request the disqualification of Judge Daniel Urrutia
After that, the defense attorneys, Juan Carlos Manríquez and Cristóbal Osorio, presented a motion to disqualify Daniel Urrutia from the case, announcing a series of screenshots from social networks, where the judge has publicly shown his position of removing the head of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court.
“This defense considers it evident that the grounds for recusal that are put forward are fully established, since Judge Urrutia, as already indicated, has been involved in political and political activities. has expressed negative opinions of Mrs. Vivanco on several occasions, supporting comments that, on occasions, insult my client, treating her as corrupt.“, was explained in the presentation, emphasizing the “existence of resentment or enmity towards my client.”
Faced with this request, the Court of Appeals of Santiago resolved: “Please bring this prior statement to the attention of the judge of the aforementioned court so that in accordance with the provisions of article 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sand refrain from intervening in the respective cause, until this incident is resolved.”
In addition to this, they requested a report “from Judge Daniel Urrutia Labreaux, in accordance with the challenge formulated against him, who must evacuate him in the period of three days.”