TSJ denied the request requested by Iván Simonovis

Photo: Reference

The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared inadmissible an application for certiorari made in the trial followed by Iván Simonovis, whose lawyers are trying to have the seizure of a property annulled, according to judgment No. 75 drawn up by magistrate Francia Coello.  

Simonovis was sentenced to the maximum penalty for the violent events of April 11, 2002, but he was granted a humanitarian measure in the form of house arrest, which in the end he mocked to settle in the United States.

On February 3, the lawyers Oswaldo Adolfo Domínguez Hernández and Oswaldo José Domínguez Florido, acting as legal representatives of the Mercantile Society, Pertiñez Heidenreich Publicidad CA requested the Criminal Chamber to address the case against Simonovis in the Special Court 2 ° Antiterrorist for the crimes of obstruction of justice and treason.  

The lawyers argued that they learned through the media and from María del Pilar Pertiñez, Simonovis's wife, that the aforementioned antiterrorist court had ordered the seizure of a property owned by Sociedad Mercantil Pertiñez Heidenreich Publicidad. They said that the aforementioned court had decreed this measure in the framework of a criminal proceeding followed by a legal professional with the last name Perdomo and against Simonovis. Thus, they went to the antiterrorist court, but it allegedly denied them access to the file, argued the lawyers who, based on this, knocked on the doors of the Criminal Chamber.  

When analyzing the proposal, the magistrates observed that the legal representatives of the Sociedad Mercantil Pertiñez Heidenreich Publicidad "omitted to exercise the pre-existing ordinary channels, such as the appeal, the third party according to the case, which could be exercised at the appropriate time" .  

The magistrates criticized the attorneys for the Simonovis-Pertiñez marriage because they used the figure of the certiorari “which is an exceptional, restricted and discretionary figure on the part of this Chamber, as a third instance, without having exhausted the ordinary judicial procedural means pre-existing to the purposes of enervating the decree of the seizure measure on real estate ”. For these reasons, they declared the remedy of avoidance inadmissible.  

 

SPONSORED LINKS

				
					<div class="fb-comments" data-href="<?php the_permalink(); ?>" data-width="100%" data-numposts="5">&nbsp;</div>