Colombia’s Supreme Court has rejected claims that it has been inconsistent over its ruling to deem the “Raul Reyes” computer files inadmissible, calling for respect for its decision amid a barrage of “degrading” comments.
Supreme Court President Javier Zapata read a statement Wednesday evening reiterating the reasons behind the decision and asking for respect.
He clarified that the ruling was in no way an examination of the military attack itself, which seized the files after a deadly 2008 raid on “Raul Reyes”‘ Ecuador-based camp, with the Supreme Court “focusing the study strictly on the legal [side].”
Given that the evidence was obtained in a foreign country, “its legality was subject to compliance with the
required protocols in such cases by domestic legislation and international conventions concerning evidence.”
This referred to the fact that the military officials who obtained the files were not authorized to gather evidence to be used in Colombian courts, as this falls under the responsibilities of the judicial police.
The authorities “ignored the ‘due process’ that governs the production [in court] of evidence abroad,” Zapata read from the statement.
“While admitting that its [the Supreme Court’s] decisions may be subject to criticism, it also calls for respect for them and in particular deplores and rejects the degrading expressions from some commentators,” the statement continued.
The decision over the files, dismissed on May 18 during the FARC-politics trial of former socialist congressman Wilson Borja, has come in for heavy criticism from certain commentators.
President Alvaro Uribe launched a series of scathing attacks via Twitter, while Inspector General Alejandro Ordoñez stated his intention to appeal for a review of the ruling.
Prosecutor General Viviane Morales suggested Wednesday that the Court had not been consistent, “About a year ago the Court was not as emphatic, it said that the evidence is insufficient but not illegal.”
The Supreme Court statement alluded to this accusation by asserting that in earlier FARC-politics cases the Court had not ruled on the legality of the files in question, “let alone that it had supported their validity.”
The statement concluded that it was simply “strictly adhering to the rule of the constitution and laws of the republic.”
