Two versions would reveal ‘interference’ by former judge María Belén Domínguez in the entry and raffle of a case related to Jorge Yunda

Taking advantage of her “superior hierarchical position as a judge to exert influence and mislead two subordinated to crystallize the atypical draw ”are part of the facts for which it is investigated to María Belén Domínguez, former judge of the Judicial Unit for Violence against the Family and Women of Quitumbe, indicated as the direct author of the crime of influence peddling.

Domínguez, in his capacity as judge, was the one who resolved a protection action presented by the then mayor of Quito, Jorge Yunda, whose purpose was to avoid being removed from office. Due to irregularities that occurred in the entry and drawing of this constitutional action, on November 9, a 90-day tax instruction was initiated against Domínguez.

Judiciary dismissed a judge who ruled in favor of Jorge Yunda amid the dispute for the Mayor of Quito

The provincial prosecutor of Pichincha, Alberto Santillán, presented more than 20 elements at a hearing to ensure that Domínguez would have arranged, through other judicial officials, the entry of the constitutional action to the Judicial Complex of Quitumbe, in the south of Quito, “with the slogan that the cause should fall on her.”

According to the Prosecutor’s Office, at the request of the defendant, the constitutional guarantee action arrived at his office as a process of “violence against women and the family, through an urgent act, mutual legal assistance”, achieving from this way that the file is not drawn between the 331 judges of the Metropolitan District of Quito, but that the possibilities are reduced to the four of the Judicial Unit of Violence against Women and the Family of the South Judicial Complex of Quitumbe, where Domínguez worked.

Santillán presented at the hearing in which the periodic presentation and use of electronic shackle was defined for Domínguez, the versions given last August 16 by Alexandra A. and Daniela A., two judicial officials who worked with the now ex-judge. Both would be on whom influence was exerted from the position held by Judge Domínguez, who was also coordinator of Judges of the Judicial Unit for Intrafamily Violence number 5, and whom she misled.

Alexandra A. in her version before the Prosecutor’s Office indicated: “(…) Dr. María Belén Domínguez insistently told me that people from above the Council of the Judiciary go and that they need a protection action to be taken. I replied that we do not draw protection actions and that our system Domestic violence did not give us the options to circumvent a protection action, to which he told me ‘I need this protection action to be entered anyway. Tell Daniela A. to send the system options’ (…) ”.

Due to health issues, Alexandra A. was not in the Quitumbe Judicial Complex at the time of the request, so she asked her partner Daniela A. to carry out Domínguez’s disposition, because if that was not given, “them they were going to attract attention ”.

In her version, Daniela A. explained: “(…) Alexandra tells me that Dr. María Belén had told her that the cause of protection action had to be resolved as an urgent act. I told Alexandra that if I draw the cause like this, I will have problems with the other judges of the Violence Unit. Alexandra tells me through WhatsApp not to worry, which are orders from above, that there will be no problems, that I sort out the cause as requested … “.

For the Prosecutor’s Office, what corresponded in that case was that the process was processed in the Flagrant Crimes Unit, since he was admitted at 17:03 on June 18, that is, outside working hours of the Violence Unit.

Shortly before 5:00 p.m. on that June 18, the person who was told would arrive at Daniela A.’s window. “I told the user if it was the person sent by Dr. Domínguez, he was silent for a few seconds and he said yes. At that moment I saw my cell phone and said: doctor missing two minutes to 17:00, I can no longer enter the cause. The user got angry and told me: you work until five (…) ”.

“When I review the document, I realize that there was no attorney’s credential. I tell the user and he tells me to appear for his own rights. At that moment I read and I see that it was from doctor (Jorge) Yunda ”.

The prosecutor Alberto Santillán included in the hearing of the formulation of charges the information that the former judge today would have arranged to Alexandra A. and Daniela A. to format their cell phones so that there is no trace of the conversations they held on June 18, 2021.

Domínguez allegedly offered both lawyers for their defense and even sought them out to meet, for example, with Alexandra A., to talk about how they should answer the Prosecutor’s Office and to the disciplinary control officers of the Council of the Judiciary (CJ).

On October 5, the plenary session of the CJ reported the dismissal as judge of María Belén Domínguez and Daniela A., judicial assistant of the Fifth Specialized Judicial Unit of Violence against Women of Quitumbe.

Prosecutor maintains that former judge María Belén Domínguez was part of the irregularities in the raffle of a case related to Jorge Yunda

For the CJ, both civil servants were sanctioned for the infraction established in numeral 13 of the article 109 of the Organic Code of the Judicial Function, after being investigated for their participation in the raffle of the constitutional protection action presented by Jorge Yunda.

Domínguez resolved the protection action filed by Yunda against the councilors who made up the Table Commission that issued the reports for his removal from the mayor’s office. On June 28, in her capacity as judge, she partially accepted the action to protect the appeal, because, she said, legal security was violated.

The sentence produced several complaints about alleged inconsistencies in the drawing of the case that fell on Domínguez, as well as in the process of another protection action in which Judge Carlos Soto He also agreed with Jorge Yunda and stopped his removal from the mayor’s office. (I)