Áñez fue condenada a 10 años de cárcel por incumplimiento de deberes y resoluciones contrarias a la ley cuando asumió el poder en 2019 en medio de la crisis postelectoral que para el gobierno de Luis Arce y el oficialismo fue un “golpe de Estado” contra Evo Morales
El gobierno de Luis Arce celebró parcialmente este viernes la condena de 10 años de cárcel para Jeanine Áñez al considerar que se sentó un «precedente histórico», aunque también anticipó que es apenas el inicio de los procesos contra la exmandataria interina, a quien también enjuiciará por las muertes durante la crisis de 2019.
«Hoy se hizo historia. La señora Jeanine Añez fue sentenciada a 10 años en el caso Golpe II por la autoproclamación y la vulneración de las normas de sucesión constitucional en nuestro país el año 2019 en el Golpe de Estado», escribió en sus redes sociales el ministro de gobierno (Interior), Eduardo del Castillo.
«Este precedente debe servir para que nunca, bajo ningún motivo, una persona se autonombre presidente del país», concluyó Del Castillo, cuyo despacho fue uno de los acusadores en el caso «golpe de Estado II».
El Ministerio de Justicia señaló en un comunicado que «se ha completado una fase decisiva en el proceso de recuperación de la democracia» y defendió que el órgano Judicial «en el ejercicio de su independencia dictó una sentencia» enmarcada en «los principios y garantías del debido proceso».
«La sentencia por el caso Golpe II es un precedente histórico para que no se vuelva a repetir un golpe de Estado a partir de la ruptura del orden constitucional. Establece ante la historia que la vía democrática y constitucional es la única ruta para llegar al poder», indica la nota.
Para esa institución, el fallo «prueba todas las vulneraciones en las que incurrió la señora Añez en su calidad de senadora, al autoproclamarse presidenta del Estado».
«La memoria de nuestros mártires se honra parcialmente hoy. Este es un primer paso en el camino hacia una reparación integral y solo concluirá cuando los responsables de las masacres, ejecuciones sumarias y todas las violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas durante el movimiento golpista de 2019, rindan cuentas ante la justicia», agregó.
Además, insistió en que el proceso se enmarcó en las leyes y aseguró que organismos internacionales como la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos verificaron que se respetaron los derechos humanos y «garantías jurisdiccionales» de la exmandataria.
El ministerio recordó que el contenido completo de la sentencia se debe conocer en un plazo máximo de tres días hábiles, como indican las normas.
Por ello «no corresponde por el momento realizar mayores comentarios acerca de esa decisión», señala el comunicado, aunque el titular de Justicia, Iván Lima, anticipó al canal privado Bolivisión que apelarán el fallo, pues pedían 15 años de prisión para Áñez por este caso.
Por su parte, la Misión en Bolivia de la Oficina de la Alta Comisionada de Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos dijo que de conformidad con su mandato «lleva a cabo una observación internacional sobre el proceso judicial contra Jeanine Áñez y otros 8 imputados, acusados de incumplimiento de deberes y resoluciones contrarias a la Constitución y a las leyes».
El organismo recordó que esa observación internacional fue solicitada por el Ministerio de Justicia «y aceptada por las partes y el Órgano Judicial» y que harán sus observaciones «una vez que la sentencia haya sido emitida y leída en su integridad», lo que se prevé que ocurra el 15 de junio.
Áñez fue condenada a 10 años de cárcel por incumplimiento de deberes y resoluciones contrarias a la ley cuando asumió el poder en 2019 en medio de la crisis postelectoral que para el gobierno de Luis Arce y el oficialismo fue un «golpe de Estado» contra Evo Morales. Por EFE -junio 11, 2022
Bolivian Justice sentences former president Jeanine Añez to 10 years in prison
The First Sentencing Court of La Paz sentenced the former Bolivian president Jeanine Añez to 10 years in prison for the crimes of “resolutions contrary to the Constitution” and “breach of duties”, in one of the several processes that justice Bolivian follows the 54-year-old politician, who has been in prison for more than a year. The trial referred to Añez’s actions after the resignation of Evo Morales in 2019 and her subsequent proclamation as president, actions that the prosecution considered a “coup d’état”.
For the Bolivian ruling party, the sentence “sets a precedent so that a coup d’état is never again attempted in Bolivia.” On the other hand, the opposition unanimously rejected the outcome of a trial that former President Carlos Mesa’s party called “one of the most shameful examples of handling by the Public Ministry and the Judicial Branch in favor of obscure interests of the government party.” Together with Añez, the former Commander of the Armed Forces, Williams Kaliman, and the former Police Chief, Yuri Calderón, who are fugitives, were sentenced to ten years. Other former military commanders received sentences between two and four years.
The decision of the judges was known in a virtual session. The trial was only semi-face-to-face and the determination of when there should be physical meetings and when there should not be a matter of dispute between the defense and the judges. The former president was not allowed to attend court, allegedly due to security concerns. On June 9, she participated “online” in the last argument hearing from the prison where she is being held. She was reported drowsy from the medications she had been given to alleviate the stress of the procedure. Her daughter, who accompanied her, and her defense attorneys insisted that she was not fit to continue the trial, but the court took advice from the prison doctors and, although it ordered a recess, it heard the presentation of arguments until final. Subsequently, the defense denounced “cruel and degrading treatment” to the press. Government lawyers believe that these complaints are aimed at preparing the presentation, in the future, of an appeal before an international tribunal.
To hear the last words of the accused, the judges visited them in their jails. Before them, Añez pointed out: “I have been accused of crimes that I have not committed, invented, only for pleasing political power. I have been denied the right to justice. This is how they have treated a woman, mother, former president, innocent. Because all of Bolivia knows that those crimes for which they are accusing me, I have not committed. All of Bolivia knows that [solo] I was a consequence of everything that happened in 2019. He also stated that he had “the government, but not the power.” And he confirmed that the legal battle will continue: “We are not going to stay here. We are going to appeal internationally.”
The defense objected to requesting such a high penalty for charges of an administrative nature. But the main observation of Añez’s legal team, as well as of the opposition politicians who support her, is that the illegal acts for which she is accused have been divided into several groups and, therefore, in several different processes. It was for this reason that, in this case, the prosecution was able to prosecute Añez before an ordinary court, arguing that the crimes she charged him with were committed before she was president of Bolivia. In this way, the accusation eluded the constitutional obligation to prosecute the former presidents in a trial of responsibilities, a special process that must begin in the Legislative Assembly with the favorable vote of two thirds of the parliamentarians. The government of President Luis Arce does not have sufficient support for this and has preferred to avoid negotiating with the opposition parliamentary forces, who initially did not want to prosecute Añez, but later changed their minds to try to give the former president a process in better conditions. than the one he had. As a result, the main crimes that, according to the prosecution, were Añez’s responsibility, such as acts of repression of protests against her government in which more than 30 people died and 85 were injured, have not been included in this trial. . And they will not be judged as long as the correlation of parliamentary forces does not change.
The complicated and not always coherent legal strategy of the ruling party has ended up confusing its own bases. Before the verdict was known, the powerful Pact of Unity, the structure of unions and social movements of the Movement for Socialism (MAS), threatened to take over the judicial institutions and mobilize if Añez was not sentenced to the maximum penalty (30 years in prison). prison) for his management of the Government, ignoring that this was not what was being analyzed in the trial.
A third group of questions about the process that has just ended refer to its unusual characteristics: its speed, since it has barely lasted a year when similar processes usually take three or four times as long in Bolivia. One of Añez’s defense attorneys, Luis Guillén, called it an “express trial.” To achieve this record, the trial court limited the evidence and the witnesses presented by the defense, demanding that they all refer to the short period of time in which the investigated events occurred, which was also denounced by the defense as an indication of bias. . According to this legal team, by not considering the context of what was prosecuted, the debate on the alleged fraud in the October 2019 elections was eliminated as the origin of the political crisis that culminated in the fall of President Evo Morales and his replacement by Añez. .
The court determined what happened between November 10, 2019, when Morales resigned, overwhelmed by the protests against him, by the mutiny of the police and by the disloyalty of the Armed Forces, and November 12, the day on which Jeanine Añez became president. It ruled that the then second vice president of the Senate acted against the Constitution and failed to fulfill her duties as a public official. What was appropriate was to convene a parliamentary meeting with a quorum in which the resignations of Morales, Vice President Álvaro García Linera and the presidents of the chambers of senators and deputies were discussed, and then it was decided who should lead the Executive. Instead, Añez, with the support of the military and police chiefs, proclaimed herself president in a parliamentary session without a quorum.
The defense, for its part, recalled the difficult circumstances that existed in those days when the police were mutinous and there was violence in the streets. He accused the MAS of having ordered the resignation of all legislative authorities and of having prevented the Assembly meeting from having a quorum, and pointed out that Añez, who was the country’s highest authority at the time, took office by constitutional succession to prevent a “vacuum of power” disastrous for the country.