Global Courant 2023-04-25 22:13:57
Judge Carlos Ruano presented a challenge against the president of the Judicial Branch (OJ), Silvia Valdés, who seeks that she be removed from the process of withdrawing the right to a trial that was initiated against her due to a complaint filed by the Foundation against Terrorism.
Judge Ruano, recognized by Washington for his fight against corruption in 2021, is singled out by the Foundation Against Terrorism in a case involving magistrate Blanca Stalling, who was reinstated in that position after being prosecuted in the “Influence Peddling” case. .
Judge Ruano denounced in January 2017 that Judge Stalling had pressured her to rule in favor of her son, Otto Fernando Molina Stalling, who was arrested and prosecuted in the IGSS-Pisa case.
For that case, a court found 12 defendants guilty, including Molina Stalling, who served as a former IGSS adviser. The sentence was six years and three months and a fine of Q50 thousand and he was acquitted of the crime of illicit association.
According to Judge Ruano, it is for this reason that Valdés should not have been aware of the request to process the complaint because, according to him, the magistrate has an impediment to do so.
According to Ruano, Valdés already expressed an opinion in the preliminary trial that he endorsed against Blanca Stalling.
In the memorial presented by Judge Ruano, he mentions that Judge Valdés had to excuse herself as did the rest of her colleagues who heard the request of the Special Prosecutor’s Office against Corruption, of the Public Ministry, who requested the withdrawal of immunity against Stalling, of course influence peddling.
Also read: The CC does not grant provisional protection to judge Carlos Ruano, so the petition for the withdrawal of immunity is still ongoing
He explains that in the brief that he files against Silvia Valdés it is to challenge her, since he considers that having already heard the same facts in pre-trial 22-2017, he did not inhibit himself, despite the fact that he knew that he was prevented from knowing those proceedings, because they were the “same facts”.
Also read: Reinstatement of Blanca Stalling is a decision of the CSJ, the Constitutional Court responds
He recalled that six CSJ magistrates refrained from hearing a case and invoked article 122 subparagraph h of the Law on the Judiciary.
