Tomás Farini Duggan and José Avila, representatives of the next of kin of victims of the AMIA attack, Luis Czyzewski and Mario Averbuch, They appealed this Tuesday before the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber the rejection of the Federal Oral Court 8 (TOF 8) to the challenge of the trial prosecutor Marcelo Colombo for alleged prejudice.
The complaint of the relatives had requested set aside to Colombo for “prejudge” having accepted the unprecedented preliminary hearing in the oral trial for the Pact with Iran requested by the vice president, Cristina Kirchner.
But the members of TOF 8 Gabriela López Iñiguez and the judges Daniel Obligado and José Michilini they rejected the challenge and they went ahead with the preliminary hearing that does not exist in the criminal procedure code.
Then, this Tuesday the complaint of the relatives presented an appeal for cassation. They recalled that they challenged both the prosecutor as the members of TOF 8. The challenge to the judges is pending to be drawn to another oral court to decide.
In a brief, he stated that the judges “had anticipated your criteria by formulating a precise and well-founded statement on the merits of what had to be resolved in that act, in a way that is not provided by law (the reasons invoked to challenge the Prosecutor and VVEE were the same) ”.
So, that ruling dated July 12, 2021 “lacks the essential motivation required by art. 123 of the CPPN, insofar as your Excellencies ordered the rejection of the challenge filed with respect to Dr. Colombo, failing to resolve the challenge raised by the cause of prejudice”.
The complaint considered that this measure “Transgresses the inc. 10 of article 55 of the CPPN, import an error in proceeding (art. 456, inc. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Nation), with the consequent impact on the principle of legality, the right to defense in court and the guarantee of due process , all enshrined in articles 18 and 75, inc. 22 (art. 8, inc, 1 of the ACHR) of our National Constitution and articles 26 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 14.1 of the International Covenant on Rights ”.
The contested resolution “offers no reason to explain why your Excellencies have not incurred in prejudice when pronouncing rejecting the challenges raised, when you and the Prosecutor were challenged for the same reasons and in the same act, for reasons that are considered highly consistent or, at least, understandable ” .