translated from Spanish: Minsal Post Office: Prosecutor’s Office responded to Supreme Court and called Paris’ arguments “inappropriate”

The regional prosecutor Metropolitan Centro Norte, Xavier Armendáriz, presented a seven-page brief responding to the Minister of Health, Enrique Paris, former Minister Jaime Mañalich, and the lawyers of President Sebastián Piñera, on the investigation that leads to alleged deficiencies identified in the number of people who died during the pendemic. The letter was filed with the Supreme Court that must rule on the delivery of emails from two former authorities and a current Minsal official, as Paris objected to providing the e-mails, despite an order from the 7th Santiago.Armendáriz Guarantee Court states that Paris and his refusal to deliver the emails to the Public Prosecutor’s Office “is inappropriate”. In addition, it stated that “it is possible to point out that the argument that the information collected could exceed the framework of the basic investigation may occur in any diligence of entry, registration and seizure, but, for obvious reasons, it cannot be left at the discretion of the requested what information is provided. To accept such a position would obviously jeopardize the effectiveness of any criminal investigation and constitute a disrewarding precedent, since it should be noted that the selection of relevant evidence must be left to the investigating body or, where appropriate, to fall within the sphere of competence of the guarantee judge””Obviously it is an issue that does not relate to the scope of this dispute (likely to affect national security). It was then noted in our original presentation that the authorities involved in it should not have sensitive data on particular patients. We’re referring to her. Finally, in the face of affected potential (in their privacy or privacy, not national security) it should be considered that the law itself (art. 13 of the Patient Rights and Duties Act) authorizes the Public Prosecutor’s Office to access such background,” he added in the document. Referring to the reserve importance of purchasing certain medical supplies, the prosecutor asserts that “this section is based on numerous domestic and foreign press articles. The subject matter of such allusions is not understood, since the truth is that publications of this kind would serve to support any opinion, with the purpose of selecting the appropriate material. It is clear that some press opinions cannot be imposed above the legal system.” Armendáriz also stated that “the argumentation of the report, as to the secrecy in which it is in wants to protect and the failures accompanied to found them, leaves aside that they are obviously oblivious to the present controversy (refusal to hand over information to the body responsible for criminal prosecution) and does not take into account, then, that such a secret should be the most restrictive of all , because it may involve, at all, the impunity of senior State agents in such a relevant matter as the management of a pandemic, which affects all citizens directly.” In this we allow ourselves to reiterate that the Public Prosecutor’s Office, throughout the country and since its creation, in all the investigations it has carried out that affect public authorities related to national security (armed institutes, Ministries of the Interior or Defence, National Information Agency, Carabineros, arms purchase, reserved expenses, etc.) do not recall precedents of any of them denied to provide information based on Mr. , Minister of Health, that is, affect national security,” he says. Finally, the persecutor states that “ultimately, the filing of the defences focuses on questioning the merits of the request made by this prosecutor’s office and the subsequent judicial authorization. In this way, behind these questions is a kind of appeal, which is entirely inappropriate, seeking to take the matter to a higher body, under a modality not provided for in our procedural system.” The opposition of the defendants in the base case, at this seat, is totally inappropriate. This is for the most basic of legal reasons: They do not own the legal good under discussion,” he said.

Original source in Spanish