On Thursday, Supreme Court spokeswoman Gloria Ana Chevesich condemned the social media threats received by Temuco Guarantee Justice Federico Gutiérrez after leaving Martín Pradenas, a subject formalized this week for sexually abusing Antonia Barra, leaving him without pre-trial detention.
In this regard, Chevesich said that «the Judiciary, in general, and the Supreme Court, in particular, condemns, criticizes and categorically rejects any act of harassment against members of the judiciary motivated by decisions they take, in the specific case, at a hearing requesting that in respect of an accused person the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention be decreed.»
In that regard, he stated that the justice system envisages the possibility of reversing the decisions of judges: «The only way enshrined in national law to challenge a decision taken by a court of justice is the filing of procedural actions; different routes compromise the rule of law that governs the country, as they violate one of the main values of the judiciary which is that of judicial independence. In the specific case, before the decision taken by the tesasafe court of Temuco, the appeal can be inferred, therefore, it will be the Court of Appeal of that city that must rule».
Faced with the relevance of the causes and the attention of the public in them, the spokeswoman delved that «all people have the right to know the decisions that are taken, also to give opinions on them, and that is why the Judiciary has carried out a policy of disseminating hearings that are held in the guarantee tribunals , also in the orals, and the publication of the judgments to be given; but it is unacceptable that actions such as the ones indicated whose objective seems to be aimed at intimidating a judge, so we call on not to go down that path.»
Finally, he added to what the President of the Supreme Court, Guillermo Silva, said, and stated that «in the sense that judges and judges in deciding a matter that has been submitted for consideration, they must always bear in mind the merits of the background, and the rulings they issue must contain the factual reasoning arising from the weighting of the evidence given by the litigants and the applicable reflections of law. We call on judges and judges to do the work they have undertaken and to take the decisions in the terms set out, and not to give in to pressure of any kind, and to always remember that when taking office they took an oath or promise to comply with and enforce the Political Constitution of the Republic and the laws.»