Global Courant
Ten months and 13 days after the capture of the journalist Jose Rubén Zamora came the verdict of the Eighth Court, which ruled out two of the three crimes that the Public Ministry charged him with, which, according to the judge, he could not prove. In any case, national and international press organizations question the sentence of six years in prison for money laundering, because the obstacles to the exercise of the journalist’s right to defense were evident.
Both parties have already announced the appeal, in opposite directions, but the ruling itself was a setback for prosecutor Cinthia Monterroso, who had sought a 40-year prison sentence for three crimes. The allegations of alleged blackmail and influence peddling could not be proven for an obvious reason. In addition, the alleged aggravating factor included in the prosecutor’s accusation to try to justify such a penalty simply does not apply, because it involves freedom of expression, a right of constitutional rank. Public statements by prosecutor Rafael Curruchiche, head of the Feci, revealed, perhaps in a verbal slip, that the persecution against Zamora is motivated by his opinions, which he or any citizen is free to issue, according to article 35 of the Constitution. Whether someone likes them or not is different. In the event that he had incurred in slander or defamation, the legal channel should have been the Thought Emission Law.
“A low blow for press freedom in Guatemala”: this is how Carlos Jornet, president of the IAPA’s Committee on Freedom of the Press and Information, described the sentence against the journalist, who considers that the resentment generated by his denunciations of corruption throughout various governments, including members and relatives of the current ruling party.
Two days before the sentence, the MP released another accusation against Zamora, for an alleged falsification of immigration document signatures, which may have occurred between 2012 and 2015. Such temporality exhibits a special dedication to searching for documents referring to the uncomfortable defendant, in a chaotic system, something that has not been applied with such efficiency in cases of fugitives linked to fraudulent millionaires.
Another judicial setback against the Prosecutor’s Office was the provisional protection of the Supreme Court of Justice in favor of six journalistic organizations, which requested the cessation of the instrumentation of isolated sections of the Organized Crime Law to persecute journalists and columnists of the extinct elPeriódico: a minor law cannot contravene guarantees of the Constitution, was the argument. Despite said protection, the Prosecutor’s Office requested copies of articles published within three days from the former manager of said closed company. Perhaps they are unaware that in journalistic companies the Writing area works separately from the administration area. In any case, the feasibility of said action should be reviewed, to see if it does not contravene the Court’s order. The precedent is harmful because it compromises the free expression of all citizens.
The Court dismissed the accusation of alleged disclosure of confidential information against former prosecutor Samari Gómez and ordered her immediate release. With this resolution the legal justification for there to be third-party plaintiffs ends. The route of the appeals will take place in another instance and most likely will take place in a different political framework, after the results of the elections for president and deputies, with the current ruling party in its final stretch.
Controversial ruling marks setback for prosecution
America Region News ,Next Big Thing in Public Knowledg
