Relatives of victims of the AMIA attack they challenged the three judges and a prosecutor from an oral court and they asked cancel the unprecedented public hearing for Cristina Kirchner to expose the alleged cover-up of Iran in the attack against the AMIA.
The lawyers Tomás Farini Duggan and Juan José Avila on behalf of Luis Czyzewski and Mario Averbuch, relatives of victims of the AMIA, made the request in a letter to which they agreed Clarion.
The challenged judges are María Gabriela López Iñiguez, Daniel Obligado and José Michilini for accepting a public hearing before an oral trial, which the vice magistrates, with the consent of the prosecutor Marcelo colombo, gave rise to Cristina Kirchner’s request to have a hearing prior to the trial to request the nullity of all the proceedings. Forced is the same judge who granted the controversial house arrest to Amado Boudou.
The plaintiffs accused the TOF judges of calling a hearing “For political purposes” and to summon a defendant as a witness in reference to the former head of Interpol, Ronald Noble. Now, the court has to answer whether it rejects this request for disqualification.
“The temperament adopted in the exposed conditions reaffirms the need to plan the present challenge, based on fear of partiality resulting from specific acts ordered by the Court; that they have had the prior endorsement of the Attorney General ”, stated the complainants.
The request of the vice president’s lawyer, Carlos Beraldi “has as a possible purpose, to supply a podium from which to mount a political defense, so that the requested nullity be declared later in an oral hearing, prior to the oral trial, so that the oral trial is not held ”.
“The proposal is clearly unfairFurthermore, because unlike what happened in the case called “future dollar”, there is no pre-trial instance in our procedural system that allows the accused to speak and present without interruption, in an oral and public hearing, ”they highlighted in the brief.
For that reason “the audience fits the qualifier invented. And that is what has been done through the decree of your Excellencies: a prior oral debate is invented that does not exist ”.
They explained that “an oral hearing, prior to the oral trial, to deal with a nullity that is not viable from any point of view, because there are no nullities” for fear of partiality “; there are challenges, which must be raised in the opportunities set forth in art. 60 of the CPPN and that clearly – had it been raised – could not be resolved by your Excellencies ”.
Due to the complaint of the former prosecutor Alberto Nisman, this case was opened in 2015, before his crime. After the late judge Claudio Bonadio investigated her and took her to an oral trial in 2017, but there is still no start date.