A former Penta procurator fiscal criticized a case of serious criticism to the Public Prosecutor's Office in a separate chapter of his public disagreement. This time, he put a serious question on the meeting held by socialist Juan Pablo Letelier, in the middle of the "Rancagua Disaster", and questioned some of the steps he had taken such as Abbott's deportation. T asked the ministers to ask. Rancagua Court. Above all, he was killed in the face by the head of the Public Ministry to try to make the meeting clear. On Letelier, he accused him of "using the joke that had been worn when the politician had been given the crime."
The "Rancagua Disaster" and its consequences are the result of a controversial meeting between National Procurator Jorge Abbott and socialist Juan Pablo Letelier, who continue to speak the people. Now it was the great man Carlos Gajardo who spent more wood from the fire, when he posed a hard question to the people involved.
In his opinion, what happened in Rancagua, where the minister of the Court of Appeal, Emilio Elgueta, was formalized for ill-treatment and illegal wealth, and two other ministers aside, " t who have taken intelligent responsibilities to the people who may, after the scans, become politically polluted, in Carabineros, the army and other countless centers, easily found out. t and again they will impact on the legal system which was already at a level of confidence. "
In that context, Gajardo guided in a published column Third All the darts attacked the meeting between Abbott and Juan Pablo Letelier on 19 November, where the official appearance by his partners was introduced – the grandfather t socialist representing the national procurator fiscal about the "public differences" between ministers. The Rancagua Appeal Court with the Divisional Procurator the same department. "
Gajardo questioned the person who was present at the meeting, in particular that the appointment was "despite being registered in the lobbying of the Advocates' Office, who had not detailed details of the material." known just after a gamekeeper demanded a gamekeeper.
In addition, the old procurator fiscal says, "it is worse, after this meeting, that the National Complainant has decided to make the treasurer (Emiliano) and (Sergio)." ) Moya apart from the survey unfeasible to do so.
It should be argued that Abbott had said the campaign for the accused to be separated from the case was by the rules of Public Ministry, and he set out what was said about "ignorance". "and a bad religion." Letelier has also chosen to suffer, which acknowledges that it is the cause of a "organized campaign" against him.
However, Gajardo was overwhelming to say that the “Office of the Procurator Fiscal subsequently has definitions of the fact that there is no link between the prosecution and the meeting with the grandfather, symbolizing information.” T citizens who did not give notification of time regarding these cases by cart wheels. "
On the parliamentary side, the procurator fiscal states that "Mr Letelier's explanation had not been pleased. Instead of recognizing and correcting the mistake, he has reported on developments; t inorganic form against it, using an allocated waiter when a politician is found in difficulty ".
This is not the first time that Gajardo will face Abbott. In January 2018, the accused left the Ministry of Public Administration after the other release offered to the grandfather UDI that destroyed Iván Moreira in the case of Penta. And in several public interventions, he has not had problems criticizing the National Complainant, questioning his part in the fight against corruption. But Abbott has also not portrayed his idea on Gajardo, and he said that the "character was to eat the accused well."
Changes to the recruitment system
Gajardo is therefore picking up his pillars, for they have formed other bodies such as the National Magistrates' Association or the College of Solicitors, who want the case to be "substantial change". the selection and appointment methods of judges, ministers, non-narratives and fiscal, based on optional selection instruments.
In this respect, he states that “it is a unique opportunity to examine the Office of the Corporal Office and to present some serious problems within the judiciary which require detailed scrutiny in the judging systems that exist). more likely the reasons for the poor idea of the system. Indeed, if there was an interest in developing the system and its belief. "