the Senator Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner broke the silence. Full investigation into the alleged payment of bribes for public works brought to charge during the presidencies of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández, the former President of the nation published an extensive list on its official web site.
In it, he says not to know the former witnesses Oscar Centeno – who wrote books which are public knowledge – as well as the former official Claudio Uberti. However, it points with name and surname, against businessman Gabriel Romero.
Lee la carte decided completaHe not comment on “repentant” remiseros claiming to have seen me in pajamas, nor nor comment on former officials of fourth line, also “repentant”, that they were never part of my two presidencies, but that They describe almost tourist excursions in my bedroom. However, as a former President of the nation have the obligation to pronounce me about businessman Gabriel Romero – new “repentant” – which, according to titles catastrophe of Clarín and La Nación, would have been paid by a presidential decree.
Great was my surprise when I started to read the referred decree and greater still my outrage when I finished reading. Is that the Decree 113 of 21 January 2010 has very special characteristics.
Brief introduction to the referred decree on 6 January of 2002 was enacted the 25,561 law which was declared a public emergency, was the departure of the regime of exchange rate of the Argentine peso with the U.S. dollar and was authorized to the prune (r) National Executive to renegotiate the contracts of works and public services concession that had been placed in crisis by the forced exit of the mentioned regime. One of those contracts was the waterway S.A. company whose grant was approved by Decree 253 of February 21, 1995 and whose owner is Mr. Gabriel Romero.
On July 3, 2003 Néstor Kirchner, Alberto Fernández, Roberto Lavagna, and Julio De Vido signed the Decree 311 which established the unit of renegotiation and analysis of contracts of public services (UNIREN) in the orbit of the ministries of economy and Federal planning. That unit had intended doing operational renegotiations ordered by the emergency law.
The decree and the waterway on 19 June 2007, during the Presidency of Néstor Kirchner, the UNIREN and the waterway S.A company signed a proposal for a letter of understanding for the renegotiation of the concession.
The main problem that had such renegotiation was the application of standards in the field of settlement of the tax to the added value (VAT) converted to waterway S.A. in great financial assets of the AFIP by the liquidation of the tribute. The company argued that the legislation was misapplied in the particular case of its activity. During the year 2008, being President, expressed to Mr. Romero that that problem could not be solved within the scope of the Executive branch because the AFIP was not going to make any interpretation involving to cancel a debt. I told him that I wasn’t going to sign absolutely nothing without the intervention of the Congress because it was tax matter.
Finally, the problem was approached by an act of the Congress of the nation, who specifically played a form of payment of VAT in the case of concessions of works of dredging, signalling and maintenance of waterways on the occasion of their exploitation. For waterway S.A. said law, i.e. 26.453, was sanctioned on December 10, 2008 unanimously.
Recently after approved that law, the letter of understanding signed by UNIREN and the waterway S.A. company was submitted to the public hearing process in which participated and expressed opinions of users, different sectors and stakeholders. As a result, the UNIREN felt suitable to modify aspects of the proposal of understanding, all exposed to the proceedings and published on the website of the mentioned unit.
Then, on April 21, 2009 the company and the UNIREN signed a proposal of Acta agreement containing the terms of the contract renegotiation ordered by the end of convertibility law.
The procurement of the treasure of the nation, whose intervention is mandatory according to the Decree 311/03, issued a first opinion with proposals that were incorporated in a modification addenda; why, then, said body, a second final report?
Also, the Sindicatura General de la Nación (SIGEN) also took intervention according to the current regulations.
However, the most distinctive of this process was that, by being delegated, the proposed Acta agreement came out of the sphere of the executive decision and its content was compulsorily subjected to consideration and approval of the National Congress through the Bicameral Committee on follow-up of the delegates powers to the Executive branch. It should be noted that the approval of the Congress of the nation was an indispensable condition for the ratification of the Agreement Act. That is, without Parliament, there was no decree.
The Commission issued an opinion of majority which made modifications to the proposal of the Acta agreement, including also a requirement made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, international trade and worship.
Introduced the amendments proposed by the Parliament, on October 20, 2009, the UNIREN and the concessionaire company representatives signed the Acta agreement and established adequacy of the concession of the waterway, such contract conditions which had ordered the emergency exit of convertibility and public law.
Finally, and according the Decree 311/03 establishes it, corresponded to the Executive power to ratify the agreements reached and that on January 21, 2010 I signed the Decree 113.
Or is that my speech as President of the nation was limited to what could and should be done: ratify the acted and resolved by the UNIREN with public hearings of by, opinions of the procurement of the Treasury and of the SIGEN, contributions from the Ministry of former relationships tial and, finally, the intervention of the Congress of the nation through the Bicameral Committee on follow-up of the delegates powers to the Executive Branch, without whose approval no decree had been.
Today, in a real menu of “repentant” à la carte, Mr. Gabriel Romero says have paid money for the signing of this Decree, all completed previously explained, was for me required to sign. In any case, it would be very interesting that Mr. Romero would indicate who and how paid you, because never nobody paid me anything for signing neither this nor any other Decree, or carry forward any of the measures of my Governments. On the contrary, the legal problems that I have are have affected economic concentrates and hegemonic very powerful interests who always tried to obstruct what I brought forward for the benefit of the large popular majorities, of the activity economic in general and the structural debt relief of the nation.
Clear management for the ransom of the figure of the “repentant” conducted by Bonadio and Stornelli, is simply outrageous, but has the blessing of the highest level of the judiciary, of the hegemonic communication and this Government means that has provoked that our country is falling to pieces in the middle of a real economic and social catastrophe. Everyone know it.
Source of the letter: click here Fernández Cristina de Kirchner case bribes in the work published
case notebooks
