The The Supreme Court of the Nation Today overturned the ruling of the Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Criminal Court, which announced Corruption crimes are unlimited.

It was in response to the Golden Mafia case, a case that began in 1995. He was convicted 22 years later, on August 14, 2017, and the cassation confirmed it three years ago.

The court ruling was signed by the ministers Horatio Rosati, Juan Carlos Maceda ი Ricardo Lorenzett. In only two points of the ruling, they “left the appealed sentence in vain” and returned it to the cassation case to “publish a new verdict.” As for the grounds, the court referred to the prosecutor’s conclusion “accordingly” – without giving further details. Edward KazalA year and a half ago.

The judgment of the Chambers of Cassation was quashed Juan Carlos Gemini ი Gustavo HornRejected the motion of the defense requesting the early announcement of the case.

The lawyer argued that Geminian and Hornos’s arguments in support of the inconsistency were not “substantially convergent but completely different”; Because of this, he said, the majority was not properly grounded in the proposal.

“Even when the coincidence finding is the disappearance of a criminal act, it is necessary to identify the reasons why the ‘majority’ of the impugned decision goes to that decision,” Kasal said in the report, cited by the court.

In his vote, Geminian said officials’ crimes could not be declared lawful because it meant “a serious impact on the constitutional right to security of law.”

Hornos, on the other hand, agreed that the action was in force, but on the argument that the statute of limitations had not expired in this particular case because there was a procedural act interrupting that period.

But also, with a view to creating a majority in terms of fundamentals, Hornos made it clear that he would not even be able to schedule this case. He, like Geminian, does not believe that all the crimes of the officials are unlimited; For Hornos, what he does not envision is “serious deliberate crimes against the state that lead to enrichment.” They are the ones who are trying against the democratic system, according to Article 36 of the National Constitution.

The Attorney General left a written defense against possible criticism of his opinion, which sided with the defendants. “I do not ignore this The criterion I have postulated can be considered a formal exaggeration “Because, in the end, and in the terms that were listed, there was a clear coincidence of the majority in the conclusion that the action was indefinite in this process,” Kasal said, but confirmed that It was Hornos’s voice that persuaded him to act as he did. This judge, the prosecutor said, “in order to form a probable majority” contained “nuances which, in view of the above, were contrary to the conspiracies required by the necessary logical-legal unity of the foundations.” Kazal complained that Hornos, who believed that a particular case was not temporary and therefore voted for it, contained his views on unrest for the sole purpose of creating a majority.

The Cassation Chamber must now issue a new ruling and the first step will be to determine who are the judges who intend to intervene. The attorney general ruled that the new sentence should be handed down “immediately as required by the case and public order.” The case is already 26 years old.