Act No. 48 of June 10 re-posted on the Court’s website no longer contains the transcript of the debate held by several magistrates on the US two-band MS-13 application. UU. Nor why did they make the decision to draft another draft resolution.
Of the revealing debate of the magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) that was shaped in the act number 48 of the plenary session of the previous 10 of June, around if they extradited or not to two bands of the Mara Salvatrucha claimed by U.S. justice, no trace has been left. This discussion has been deleted from the digital copy of the record posted back on the Court’s website, with which he refused to extradite.
Point IV of act number 48, which is currently published, no longer transcribes the discussion developed on June 10 by magistrates Ramón Iván García, Sergio Luis Rivera, Roberto Carlos Calderón, Doris Llum Rivas Galindo, Leonardo Ramírez Murcia, Alex David Marroquín and José Ángel Pérez Chacón, on the supposedly constitutional impediments to handing over one of the claimed brigands, identified as Edwin Maurici Ramírez Morales, alias “Manicomi” and known by several other names.
You can read: ALAC-Fon asked for the resolution of the decision on Wednesday.
On June 10, the discussion on this case was pending, as it was agreed to develop a more substantiated draft resolution. It was unofficially known yesterday, according to the digital magazine Factum, that they ended up denying the request.
On this decision, the U.S. Embassy preferred not to comment at this time. The Court has also not reported on this decision, which would put an end to the discussion that began on June 10 and which remained frozen for more than two months.
Asked about the question, Magistrate Óscar López Jerez said that he could only confirm that there was a resolution on this case but that he could not declare what they resolved because the case has reservations because the resolution had not yet been signed.
YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN: Supreme Court denies extradition of brig “Manicomi” in the United States
Now not only does the Court surprise with this decision, but they also erase all traces of what was debated that day by the magistrates.
In the amended minutes, all that discussion is summarized in this paragraph: “IV) supplications. A) 126-S-2020 and b) 152-S-2019. The projects are presented. It is said to vote to withdraw the project to work on improvements based on the same: nine votes. The Head of the Assistance Unit is instructed to strengthen the resolution and then to sign the authorizations “.
Then in the minutes it reads that they moved to another item on the agenda. Why has the debate been deleted? Since when was this decided? The truth is that this measure comes after criticism arose in the Court to delay the extradition of two gangs from the MS-13, as this act reveals how several magistrates opposed the request of the northern authorities. arguing the lack of guarantees, although in that same session a diplomatic note was read in which the American country pledges not to ask for the death penalty for “Insane Asylum” and will not execute it if a judge dictates.
But the written commitment from the United States, which would have been sent by the State Department, was not enough to convince these magistrates.
What did the magistrates raise?
It all started with the fact that “Insane Asylum” committed crimes in the United States as a minor. The discussion of the aforementioned magistrates revolved around this, so much so that there were some like Alex David Marroquín Martínez who said that it was necessary to examine why the expression of guarantees of the applicant country satisfies in one case and in the another not, since “in his opinion” Article 8 of the Extradition Treaty with this country enables them not to hand it over.
Read also: ALAC requests a copy of the resolution of the CSJ, where the extradition to the USA of a brig of the MS-13 was denied
Original minutes: In the originally published minutes of the session of June 10 appeared the
discussion of the magistrates on whether or not to extradite him to “Manicomi” and the
vote with which it was guaranteed to deliver to “Blue.”
SEE: Act 1
Modified minutes: In the version of the session minutes that appeared yesterday, all the has been deleted
argument of the magistrates on June 10 and the attempt to reverse the
vote against “Blue” by the pro-government magistrate José Ángel Pérez Chacón
SEE: Act 2
The active intervention of the magistrate José Ángel Pérez Chacón, imposed by the regime of Nayib Bukele after the judicial coup in the Constitutional Court, his attempt to reverse the vote that day was made with which he endorsed the extradition of Armando Eliú Martínez, the other member of a gang called “Blue”, who fled to El Salvador after brutally attacking a compatriot and is being sued by an East Virginia court.
Pérez Chacón, who worked as a legal adviser to the Bukele Presidency, argued in this session that “there is no discussion in the draft of these issues on the direct application of the Constitution and in the light of the aforementioned international conventions, so proposing “reconsider the previous decision (vote against” Blue “) and work on a greater basis on the possibility of exercising constitutionality control of the agreements.”
According to the original record, Magistrate Calderon noted that in the United States there is the figure of control, called a “transfer motion,” where the judge of the case may decide to try as a minor or as an adult and this is not controlled by the State Department in intervening in the case of “Asylum”.
Magistrate García stated for his part that there is no guarantee granted and that this is contradictory, even with the previous case (that of the host “Blue”). “In his opinion, the communication of conditions of the Salvadoran state has not been made to judge this citizen. He expresses that, if appreciation, the United States would be obliged to comply with what is considered in this case,” according to the original act.
Speaking at the debate, Magistrate Rivera Márquez also doubted the commitment of the State Department, because even coming from the most benevolent regime “considers it difficult” as it is the judge who has the last word . And he anticipated that in case extradition was denied, “in his opinion there is an obligation to prosecute the minor here, with the difficulties it entails, if the events took place in American territory.”
Rivas Galindo also took a position similar to that of his colleagues in the sense that “in this case no guarantee has been granted and El Salvador has a ban on doing so, so he shares that the constitutionality check is carried out. “.
The fate of “Blue”
The reconsideration of the vote that endorsed the extradition of “Blue” was requested “to incorporate sufficient elements that establish a position of state for consultation with other entities that are also related to the issue of extradition” only went to be supported by the magistrates Perez Chacón, Oscar Lopez Sherry, Doris Rivas Galindo, Héctor Nahum Martinez and Elsy Dueñas Lovos.
Although the attempt to reverse the decision only had five votes, tomorrow the magistrates are preparing to review a draft resolution with aggregates in which the pro-government magistrate has been working. When López Jerez was asked why this would be done if the decision to extradite this brigand to was decided with 13 votes, he said it was to make this issue clear.
The Court has delayed the resolution of these cases, so much so that the United States told El Diari d’Avui several weeks ago that it was concerned about the slowness with which its applications are being processed. The decision on one of these requests coincides with remarks to the Bukele government that it has negotiated with the three main gangs operating in the country and their attempts to erase all traces, according to an investigation by the digital newspaper El Far published last Monday.
READ MORE:
US concerned about slow extradition of gang leaders
Tax magistrate tried to stop extradition of the host “Blue”
US files charges for terrorism offenses against 14 heads of the Salvatrucha Mara del Salvador, including the “Hollywood Devil”