Express judicial processes for corrupt officials in Venezuela

The process to judge political charges is carried out expressly in Venezuelawhere a recent investigation by corruption has left a balance of 25 detainees -14 of them State officials- already accused in a procedure that is advancing faster than usual, and that, according to experts, represents a “purge” of the chavismo.

The Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that a deputy, the head of the public crypto asset entity, a mayor, five members of a vice presidency of the state oil company PDVSA and three judges are among those involved in the corruption schemes and will be tried for the crime of “treason against the homeland”among others.

Now, the case is in the hands of Justice, which is responsible for judging the defendants, for whom the Prosecutor’s Office requested “maximum penalty”.

The constitutional lawyer and university professor Leonel Ferrer explained to EFE that the formula “It has nothing to do with the rule of law, it is an issue that is related to an internal purge in the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) for reasons of power, not just political, economic power.”

The law for civil servants

In the country, the process to try senior officials for crimes related to the administration of State resources should include, first of all, a procedure in charge of the General Comptroller’s Office, in which possible administrative responsibilities are determined.

In this regard, Ferrer pointed out that this first stage could lead to the dismissal or suspension of the official, annulment of his salary and a possible disqualification from holding public office.

Once this step has been completed, if the Comptroller’s Office considers that there could be criminal responsibility, it forwards the file to courts with jurisdiction in that matter, from which moment the Prosecutor’s Office hears the case and could issue an accusation so that the official can be tried.

The expert explained that the Constitution establishes the preliminary trial of merit, a prerogative by which “[Senior officials]cannot be tried or prosecuted if the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) has not previously declared, at the request of the Public Ministry, the merits for prosecution.”

This offers special protection to senior officials such as the head of state, members of Parliament or the Supreme Court, the executive vice president, the prosecutor, the comptroller or the ombudsman, ministers, governors, mayors and high-ranking soldiers.

However, the lawyer clarified that some common crimes, such as corruption, imply the inadmissibility of pretrial proceedings and allow the official who commits them to be “absolutely stripped of the prerogative and can be, like any citizen, the object of a trial by a court.”

express process

On March 21, the Legislature, with an overwhelming pro-government majority, lifted the parliamentary immunity of Chavista deputy Hugbel Roa, accused of being involved in the corruption scheme within the oil industry.

In an express procedure, two thirds of Parliament approved the removal so that the official can be brought to trial in ordinary courts.

The measure responded to a communication from the TSJ in which it clarified that there are facts that point to Roa “of having flagrantly participated in crimes of corruption”, for which “the preliminary trial of merit does not proceed”.

In this sense, Ferrer recalled that parliamentarians do not manage the budget, so “influence peddling” could be the crime in which Roa allegedly committed, to be judged in this way.

For the lawyer, the way in which progress is made in the processes shows a “judicialization of politics”.

“When talking about the judicialization of politics, it is not only the instrument, (it is not only) to use the administration of justice to persecute opponents, which they do, but, internally, to purge and take power within the internal dissidence that have”he stressed.

Ferrer stressed that it is the responsibility of the authorities “conclude with the truth” and, in the event that guilt is not proven, the officials will be declared innocent and could return to their positions, but if their responsibility is proven, they must face charges, which range from fines in the administrative field, to imprisonment.

According to the expert, the term to know the conclusions must be “seven and eight months”Taking into account that “constitutional guarantees must be present”.

Source: EFE