Benicio Ríos: parliamentary immunity of Congress and the judiciary politics



The Alliance for Progress legislator, Benicio Ríos, was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment in December 2017 for the crime of the aggravation of the conspiracy. This year he was a fugitive since April and just this Monday 20 he left the subway to be available to Parliament.

Nevertheless, the congressman continued to enjoy his freedom and only in the plenary session of Thursday – after the request of the Supreme Court – the parliamentary immunity of Benicio Ríos was lifted.

YOU CAN SEE PJ proposes to change the application of parliamentary immunity

However, the constitutionalist Samuel Abad He explained to the Republic that the Supreme Court was entitled to arrest and execute his sentence to Benicio Ríos, since the legislator was condemned by a trial that was opened when he was not a Member of Parliament.

"He was prosecuted for previous events and it is worth saying that he has no immunity for past behavior, the trial was opened before he was a congressman, that is, he had the trial when he was already a congressman That process did not require the abolition of parliamentary immunity because it was the previous behavior, "he emphasized.

Abad felt that this would jeopardize another sentence dictated by the judiciary, because the plenary assembly was not obliged to put the execution of the effective prison to the vote.

"For the Judicial power it was not required for the simple reason that these facts are prior. The congress has understood that it is mandatory and has followed the tradition of interpreting immunity very broadly, "he said." It is also true that there is a criterion of an old sense of the Constitutional Court that gives to understand what it Congress, "he added.

The lawyer Samuel Abad He warned that the vote in plenary, the case of the parliamentary immunity of Benicio Ríos, puts future sentences at risk.

"With that interpretation one might come to the absurdity that Congress has the power to say:" I did not awaken the immunity to an event prior to the congress. "It leads to the absurdity to leave it to the Congress to accept a sentence, "he said.

It should be recalled that according to Article 93 of the Constitution of Peru, Congressmen "can not be prosecuted or imprisoned without the prior consent of the Congress or from the Standing Committee, since they were elected one month after their election
held up in its functions. "

However, as an exception, the law gives crimes in flagrant delicto, for example if they think that the civil servant receives bribes or kills someone, this must be made available to the Congress or from the Standing Committee within twenty-four hours, whether or not to allow the deprivation of liberty and prosecution.

Samuel Abad stressed that parliamentary immunity should be regulated and that, in his opinion, "immunity is something exceptional, therefore interpretations may not be as broad".


Source link

Leave a Reply