Supreme Court Inadmitted the complaint of Álvaro Uribe's lawyer against Iván Cepeda

The Instruction Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided to inadmit the complaint filed by lawyer Víctor Mosquera, against Senator Iván Cepeda, for alleged obstruction, alteration and destruction of probative material.The lawyer, who is one of the defenders of former senator Álvaro Uribe, argued that Cepeda would have eliminated chats and audios of conversations that he held with Juan Guillermo Monsalve, a star witness in the investigation that is advanced against Uribe for alleged bribery and procedural fraud.However, for the Court, Senator Cepeda did not incur any punishable conduct and assured that the facts reported "are objectively atypical", and do not configure from that point of view concealment, alteration or destruction of any evidence, nor any other evidence, nor any otherpunishable behavior of those established in the special part of the Criminal Code ”.In addition, the Chamber clarified that there is no duty to conserve private communications, since this would imply ignorance of constitutional right to privacy and that not even under the principle of solidarity with the administration of justice would be coherent to carry out this requirement,since it would be incurred in arbitrary interference that does not know the constitutional right.

Also read: the details of the new center with which the police will face crime in the valley

“It is not possible.To do so, even under the argument of the constitutional principle of solidarity with the authorities that manage justice (...) It is an arbitrary interference - and, therefore, proscribed - in the sphere of personal intimacy, ”says the ruling.Likewise, jurisprudence emphasized that private communications are protected by fundamental rights to privacy and inviolability.In this regard, Iván Cepeda reiterated that, “aware of facts that could be relevant to justice, immediately, I made them aware of my lawyer and, through the intermediate, of the Supreme Court of Justice, so that of noneway it can be said that there has been evidence of justice, but on the contrary the voluntary and prompt delivery of said information allowed the judicial action to begin ”.