Julio López
está desaparecido
hace 6402 días
versión para imprimir - envía este articulo por e-mail

Brief story of deprivation of justice in Argentina
Por Eduardo R. Saguier - Sunday, Apr. 15, 2012 at 4:29 AM
saguiere@ssdnet.com.ar

It becomes clear that there are corruption mechanisms involving avoidance and degradation of rules and controls, spurious administration of funds, both in the way of allocating subsidies through influence peddling and the rendering of accounts where the same subsidized officials (this is the case of the Science and Technology Secretaries of universities and schools) supervise other subsidized parties and themselves. This is so evident as the timely reported persecution by the involved parties of the undersigned that, following such event and as reprisal, rudely rejected the biennial reports I submitted, constituting flagrant breach of the right of defense at trial.

BRIEF STORY OF DEPRIVATION OF JUSTICE IN ARGENTINA

On June 8, 2009, I filed a report with the ordinary criminal courts for the vicious distribution of Pesos 650 million (totaling US Dollars 1.24 billion from an IDB loan) in subsidies between the years 1997 and 2007, and within the same report I requested a broad investigation to be carried out on the authorities of CONICET, CONEAU, the Science and Technology Secretariats of National Universities, and the Ethics Committee of the National Ministry of Science and Technology, for considering they might be involved, as direct and eventual participants, in the distribution of said subsidies. The proceeding is numbered 10.152/09, and it has been processed under the file Agencia Nacional para la Promoción Científica y otros s/Delito de Acción Pública [National Agency for Scientific and Technological Promotion on Public Action Crime] in the court of Marcelo Martínez de Georgi, who after a restricted and loose proceeding, on April 14, 2011 ordered to close the case arguing the absence of a crime.

Totally unsatisfied with such decision, I appealed to the higher courts (the court of appeals’ judges are Irurzun, Cattani and Farah) and this court, with less legal grounds than the lower court’s judge (Martínez de Georgi), upheld his decision, declaring that I have not brought sufficient elements to the case in order to prove a crime and the facts related thereto, for which I was requesting the investigation and prosecution.

This unbelievable decision, affecting a responsible citizen who reports to the judicial branch regarding facts that this branch must unavoidable investigate, may only be defined as act of deprivation of justice.

In order to avoid technicalities, I will try to sum up my report with the simplest terms so that everybody can understand well what this is about.

I have specifically brought charges against a particular group of people, individually identified, who hold executive positions within the bureaucratic apparatus of public administration within the science and technology field (50 Coordinators of the Agency or ANPCYT, 60 members of the Board of Directors and of the Advisory Committees of the CONICET and the CONEAU, and a dozen of Science and Technology Secretaries from National Universities), and who have become both judges and parties to the allocation of subsidies for science and technology research.

These accused officials, specially the Coordinators of the Agency, obtained public funds (at an average of one hundred thousand dollars each) requesting subsidies then evaluated and granted by themselves, violating the basic principle of public law, pursuant to which nobody can be, at the same time, judge and party and nobody can be the judge in his own case. It is the most basic rule in the due legal process. Since the allocation of subsidies to research in Argentina is part of public tenders, and since public funds are at stake in the awarding process –as in any public tender- they are subject to the national law of administrative procedures No. 19,549 and to the set of supplementary regulations imposing the strictest objectivity, as well as in any other bidding processes where the bidding party may never be the bidding judge. The issue is as simple as that. If the bidding party awards itself the current bidding process, like the party charged with a crime becoming the judge of its own case; and if after that, to top it off, it discharges itself, everybody has the right to suspect that it has exonerated itself in order to cover itself from that crime it was accused of.

Now, we can therefore wonder what the judicial branch did in this case. Strangely enough, that question has already been answered above: the judicial authorities who have been involved in the case (court of appeals' judges Irurzun, Cattani and Farah, and judge Martínez de Georgi) have not shown their concern to carry out a full investigation of the accused people or officials and of the facts related to them.

Instead, said authorities have only declared that the reporter has not provided sufficient evidence. But, was the reporter the person in charge of clarifying the facts? The law states otherwise. The law sets forth that criminal investigation should be exclusively carried out by the judicial authorities.

That is why it is very serious that neither the Judge nor the Court of Appeals has ordered the production of the evidence I have offered, conducive to prove such failure of the involved officials to comply with their obligations, the misappropriation of public money, fraudulent administration, and conflict of interests. And it is even more serious that the production of the evidence suggested has not been ordered; therefore the investigation is completely unsatisfactory due to omission of the evidence offered.

The production of evidence would have proved the reported facts, which construed as a whole, would have led to the conclusion that we were facing criminal acts. If the offered testimonies, or testimonies of people involved and accused had been produced, such as the declaration of Dr. Enrico Stefani, former CONICET chairman, regarding his statements about influence peddling, as well as the accounting expert’s testimony with regards to settlement of accounts of subsidies received by civil servants, and if their records had been added, the judicial considerations would have been different.

The few precedents regarding this case were the evidence that called for a profound investigation of the rules applied in calls for bids. Of course the rules invoked were not the only ones. There are other rules, such as the Law of Administrative Procedures and the Criminal Code. There is also the Budget Law which requires rendering accounts of expenditures made for the justified allocation of expenses and that justification is missing when the individual granting said subsidy is the recipient thereof. This is a vicious circle where a trick or fraud is evident by the evaluator (or Coordinator) awarding the subsidy to himself, action defined in the Criminal Code as fraud, plus the violation of the duties of civil servants, since the party involved is a civil servant. In turn, we cannot say that there are no rules that penalize the case because they were not found. Rules do exist, and the judicial authorities should have related them and applied them to the facts. The following should have been done, although it was not: exhaust the relevant evidence and confront it with the rules before deciding on the absence of a crime and dismiss the case.

Strangely enough, the comptroller’s receipts for the rendering of accounts of the accused officials subsidized by the ANPCYT were not requested to the Science and Technology Secretariats of the universities and the Board of Directors of CONICET and CONEAU.

In one of the whereas clauses, it is stated that no legal regulation has been violated, based on the considerations of the Ethics Board, as well as the Anti-Corruption Office, the Office of Public Defense and the Prosecutor’s Office of Administrative Investigation. This way, the Judge and the Court of Appeals have abdicated the jurisdiction and venue, since they are exclusively in charge of the prosecution of crimes and criminal behaviors which are not within the framework of the lawfulness content or the eventual opinion of administrative authorities, perhaps interested in legalizing the activity of its own bureaucratic framework. Notwithstanding the above, note that the scope, subject-matter, purpose and duties of the administrative agencies referred to by the lower court’s Judge and the courts of appeals’ Judges are very different from the ones responsible for the prosecution of crimes and law enforcement, and especially the so called “Ethics Committee and restrictive provisions” are apocryphal entities, a simulation of lawfulness made up of subsidized officials of the ANPCYT itself, since the former is not the National Committee of Public Ethics of law 25188 and both of them are an administrative and ministerial creation aimed at hiding situations that may constitute a crime for cover-up. For this purpose and by virtue of the terms of the reported crimes, specially the incompatibility violation, there have been obstacles directly involving deprivation of justice, seeking to release the participants from any responsibility whatsoever with the simple resolution of the board of directors of ANPCYT or the Minister.

Within the scope of the Ministry of Science and Technology there is a system which delivers lawfulness, which leads to observe a false lawfulness, since the facts described by the reporter are set forth in the Criminal Code. It should be reminded in this regard that the Prosecutor’s Office of Administrative Investigation stated that there are no clear mechanisms to reconstruct the way the ANPCYT approves the financing of certain project, and that there is no certainty over the percentage of cases where coordinators or joint coordinators submit projects to be evaluated, adding that law 25200 is not applied by the officials.

It becomes clear that there are corruption mechanisms involving avoidance and degradation of rules and controls, spurious administration of funds, both in the way of allocating subsidies through influence peddling and the rendering of accounts where the same subsidized officials (this is the case of the Science and Technology Secretaries of universities and schools) supervise other subsidized parties and themselves. This is so evident as the timely reported persecution by the involved parties of the undersigned that, following such event and as reprisal, rudely rejected the biennial reports I submitted, constituting flagrant breach of the right of defense at trial.

Within such framework of deprivation of justice, it is also unbelievable how the court of appeals’ judges, Irurzun, Cattani and Farah, upheld and supported the testimony of an ANPCYT's official and failed to recognize witness Alexander who detailed the tampering of his case and the hiding of the evaluators’ identities, and added that law 23200 is not observed.

Despite the incompatibility and irregularity detected in the case of Evaluator Ceccatto, the investigation on this regard was interrupted. The same applies to more significant evidence, such as the report of the Prosecutor’s Office of Administrative Investigation which proved, among other various irregularities, a high percentage of alleged incompatibilities, and the investigation on this regard was omitted and the supported case was dismissed, leading to deprivation of justice.

I could add many other elements that build my particular case which is still in the contentious field in another lawsuit. But I do not believe it is necessary to individualize, although it is evident that I have been subject to reprisal due to my reports. On the contrary, I just want to highlight the act of deprivation of justice, which is a very serious desertion of the state before corrupt officials, who are not intended to be investigated. Said circumstance is the one clouding our future citizen, as well as harming our scientific community and, as Hobbes would say, it takes us to the kingdom of darkness.

I have tried to fulfill my duty as citizen but, apparently, the judicial authorities (the court of appeals’ judges Irurzun, Cattani and Farah), which are the core of our republican system, have turned a blind eye. As we should, somehow, make efforts in order for the Justice to pay attention, I offer this testimony in this sense and along this line. Ultimately, it is all about preserving the citizen awareness and nurturing the scientific community in order to avoid the tampering by those occasionally holding positions in the apparatus of power of the science and culture. And it is not certainly about convincing them about their duties but about convincing ourselves that our rights are at stake.

Eduardo R. Saguier


CONICET Researcher
http://WWW.ER-SAGUIER.ORG



agrega un comentario


A Healthy Skin Rejuvenator is Possible
Por John Ruwitch - Wednesday, Jul. 03, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Lionel Messi no irá mañana a jugar un partido benéfico en la ciudad estadounidense de Los Angeles disgustado con la organización del evento y manifestó su pesar por la situación en su cuenta oficial de una red social.

Messi jugó anoche junto a un `Equipo de amigos´ un amistoso a beneficio en el estadio Nacional de Lima, Perú, en el que venció por 8-5 a otro del `Resto del Mundo´, y durante el mismo sus hermanos y otros invitados fueron destratados por la organización, la misma que se encarga del cotejo en Estados Unidos.

"Decepcionado por la gestión del partido benéfico en Los Ángeles. Tenía muchas ganas de asistir y disfrutar como lo hice en Perú y en Colombia", explicó el crack del Barcelona de España y el seleccionado argentino en su cuenta de Facebook.

El rosarino argumentó además: "Este proyecto está hecho por y para los fans, y es por eso que estoy muy decepcionado con la organización. Un abrazo especial para aquellas personas que iban a apoyar esta causa en L.A. Memorial Coliseum y gracias a todos por su apoyo".

En principio, la decisión de Messi se debe a que sus hermanos, el padre del brasileño Neymar y los hijos del zaguero colombiano Mario Yepes fueron echados del banco de suplentes del `Resto del Mundo´ por la policía peruana, acatando una órden del entrenador italiano Fabio Capello.

Messi se enteró del incidente mientras jugaba, pidió el cambio y se retiró del estadio rumbo al hotel, sin pasar por las duchas.

Por su parte, al enterase de la determinación del argentino, Ralina Shaw, vicepresidente de El Padrino Sports, una de las empresas que financia el evento, expresó: "Los únicos perdedores son los fans que deseaban ver el partido".(Télam)

Penis Advantage
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle
How to Get a Boyfriend Back
How to Get a Girlfriend Back
Extenze
Vimax
Vigrx Plus
The Tao Of Badass
Fat Loss Factor
Text Your Ex Back
Get Him Back Forever
Ex Recovery System
Boost Your Bust

agrega un comentario