Supreme Court minister Gloria Ana Chevesich referred to the draft submitted by opposition senators which seeks to pardon detainees during the social outburst. Faced with this, Chevesich stated that «the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular cannot comment on or assess the exercise of the extensions that the Fundamental Charter gives to parliamentarians. And it will be at that headquarters, in the National Congress, that it will be necessary to examine whether or not it is relevant whether or not it is the law of the Republic to indulte the persons to which that law refers.» A judge cannot make an advance before learning about the background of the case, but you have to be certain and reassured that judges do not fail according to the political or ideological position that an accused may have,» he added. In this regard, the spokesotor stated that the magistrates do so «according to the evidence given by parties, public prosecutor’s office, criminal defender, whether public or private, analyses the evidence, and with its merit must consider it done, either as a common, political crime, and must issue the measures it deems relevant». Chevesich also aservered that «the courts, both Guarantee and Oral in criminal matters, resolve matters that are brought to their knowledge through the indictment or injunction made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and this has to give rise, if it deems it appropriate, to a trial of oral and public characteristics.» It is at that instance that the parties must submit the evidence, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, to establish the facts and the participation it attributes to certain persons (…) And the Criminal Ombudsman should make its approaches and provide evidence that it deems relevant,» he stressed. Finally, she stated that the magistrate stated that «the classification of a particular fact is a common crime or a political crime, it is appropriate to do so after analysis of the evidence».