Youth Justice Case Delays Emergeactive

The national ombudsman, Verónica Encina, is well aware that she often finds herself swimming against the tide in many debates. While various actors within the justice system advocate for stricter penalties, she, from the Public Defender's Office (DPP), strives to ensure that the discussion also includes considerations that uphold due process. The national ombudsman asserts that increasing penalties and strengthening the fight against crime are valid approaches, but she also emphasizes that there are more options for advancing security. For now, she stresses that adjustments must be made to the "No Escape" bill, a government initiative that seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Code to allow for trials to be held in the absence of the accused. Therefore, the challenges she has set for herself for the year 2026 are to advance the reform that grants autonomy to the DPP and to promote a law that modernizes and strengthens the institution. She has been in office for one year. How has it been to face this challenge? It has been an incredibly intense year, full of challenges, but the most important thing is that we have achieved strengthening the Public Defender's Office in all aspects, except for the budgetary aspect, which is currently at risk. The first major achievement was the presentation of the constitutional reform project that establishes the autonomy of this institution, which has been an aspiration from the beginning. In addition, we have just inaugurated our academy, which is also a significant milestone. And, on the other hand, it has been…

The Public Defender's Office announced that it will file a constitutional appeal against a decision by the Criminal Court of Cañete to postpone the trial of the minors accused of the arson attack that occurred at the Grollmus mill in Contulmo, Biobío Region, on August 29, 2022. At the end of March, after learning of a constitutional appeal filed by the public defender, Katherine Valdés, the Supreme Court ordered that the trial of the minors involved in the case be held on Wednesday, April 22nd. The regional defender for the Biobío, Osvaldo Pizarro, stated that "the Criminal Court of Cañete disregarded this order and, on its own initiative, postponed the trial for another two months." "This constitutes a serious violation of the law and the rights of our client, who has now been deprived of liberty for 492 days," Pizarro affirmed. The trial has been rescheduled for June 23rd. "This decision was justified by a lack of judges, an argument that is simply unacceptable, because the law itself provides for mechanisms of substitution and integration to ensure that the courts continue to function." The defender announced that "we will file a new constitutional appeal and we hope that this situation will be rectified urgently by the higher courts of justice, given this blatant disregard for the law." The appeal will request that the resolution of the Cañete court be annulled and that the trial be ordered to proceed...

DEAR EDITOR: I found it inappropriate that the prosecutor, Xavier Armendáriz, at the meeting convened to dismiss him, stated that he believed the acquittal of the former Chief of Staff of the Army, Mr. Juan Miguel Fuente-Alba, was unjust. With this imprudent outburst, he unnecessarily aggravated someone who had to endure a lengthy legal process for years; furthermore, he made an outdated criticism of the Supreme Court, which, in February of last year, upheld the acquittal of the aforementioned general, rejecting the appeal for annulment filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office. Miguel A. Vergara Villalobos

DEAR EDITOR: We, the undersigned, have been the public face of the defense of Mr. Juan Miguel Fuente-Alba, and we were astonished to read the words of the now-former regional prosecutor of the Metropolitan Central-North Regional Prosecutor's Office, who described the acquittal ruling issued in a trial against Mr. Fuente-Alba and his spouse as unjust. These words reveal a profound lack of understanding of the case on the part of the person who made them. Furthermore, coming from an institution that should submit its cases to the decision of the courts, this is unacceptable. It represents an attempt to overstep the jurisdictional bodies to which the Constitution and the laws have entrusted the exclusive authority to administer justice, namely the criminal court and the Supreme Court, both of which ruled in favor of acquittal. The former prosecutor's statements reveal that, even in its worst moments, the Public Prosecutor's Office is incapable of learning from its mistakes. We are proud to have contributed to ensuring that justice was served to two innocent citizens who were subjected to a ruthless persecution and who were willing to submit the decision on the accusations against them to the courts, which is the proper course of action. Despite the irrational media frenzy that is now, apparently, being attempted to prolong, beyond the judicial ruling issued in accordance with the law. The Public Prosecutor's Office should have learned that it pursued a case without merit, a case that is now being attempted to be revived.