translated from Spanish: Minister Rutherford’s report highlighting the Army’s no collaboration to deliver information

In the midst of the process opened before the Constitutional Court for the defense of the commander-in-chief of the Army, General (r) Humberto Oviedo to paralyze the investigation against her minister on extraordinari visit Romy Rutherford, a document prepared by the magistrate, unveiled the total lack of cooperation that the Army has lent in this case.
According to La Tercera reports, the document was required by the TC to clarify which steps it had made, following oviedo’s defense complaint that it argued that all the investigation had been suspended in January and not just the edge “tourism companies” , thesis that was finally received by the First Chamber of the Court and which paralyzed the case against the former uniformed chief. In the brief, Rutherford explained to the TC that the Castrense institution was required to provide information on the travels of the last four former commanders-in-chief of the Army, including the Oviedo period. However, eventually the Army did not give him the travel programs between 2006 and 2009 to find out what the commanders-in-chief were supposed to do when they went abroad with tax money.
Rutherford notes that “on 13 March the Army would be officiated to be referred, within 15 days, for all travel officer programmes made by commanders-in-chief from 2006 to date.”
“At such a request, the Major General, Chief of Staff Schafik Nazal Lázaro, responded two and a half months later, on 29 May, noting that he did not yet have a record, so he was requesting an extension. On the 30th of the same month, this instructor reiterated the request granting her a period of 10 additional days, stating that lacking the documentation relating to service commissions was not an option to remit the programs,” she says.
General Nazal’s June 6 response fulfilled “partially what is required, forwarding the programmes for the years 2010 to 2019. As for the remaining documentation requested by this court and not forwarded, he argued that it was lacking according to a search certificate signed by the brigadier general, director of operations of the Army, Cristóbal de la Cerda Rodríguez, noting that there was no found the background to the programmes between 2006 and 2009,” the document adds.
Rutherford adds that on June 7, he asked General Nazal to “indicate rightly whether or not the missing documents were in his possession, whether or not they were lost, lost, destroyed or had never existed, and should indicate in his case whether a summary investigation or administrative summary for this reason and, if so, the state in which it would find, and for the event that had been destroyed and/or incinerated proceed to send the respective certificate indicating the reason and date that would account for it”.
However, Nazal replied that on 24 June that “having exhausted the search instances it was possible to find only the background to the service commissions from the period 2006 to 2009, without loss, destruction, summary, or investigation into the absence of the requested programmes.”
 

Original source in Spanish