CONSTITUTIONAL COURT: JUDGE MUST ISSUE NEW RULING IN PAVÓN-INFIERNITO CASE

Guatemala, July 12, 2012. The Constitutional Court (CC), through its ruling of July 5, 2012 in the Pavón-Infiernito Case, stipulated that Judge Carol Patricia Flores of the First Court of the First Instance for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment failed to give details of the grounds on which the case against Aldo Stefano Figueroa Díaz, an accused party, was sent to trial. Therefore, the CC ordered that the aforementioned judge issue a new ruling with the due legal grounds.

In regard to the case of Axel Arnoldo Martínez Arreaza, the Constitutional Court (CC) ruled that the judge failed to carry out an analysis of any kind or respond to the technical defense's assertion that the accused party was not heard on that particular charge, nor were he included in a proceeding. Therefore, the judge was ordered to answer the arguments put forward by the technical defense, in accordance with the law.

CICIG strives to participate in judicial proceedings that respect the guarantees and fundamental rights of parties to a case, and hence we respect the present judgment passed down by the illustrious Constitutional Court. Our respect corresponds to the duty to comply with decisions made by judges in a state governed by the Rule of Law. Furthermore, as the supreme guardian of the Charter, the Constitutional Court is a channel through which the respect of the fundamental rights embodied in the Constitution must be guaranteed.

BACKGROUND FACTS
Aldo Stefano Figueroa Díaz and Axel Arnoldo Martínez Arreaza, both of whom are accused parties in the Pavón-Infiernito proceedings, filed applications for constitutional amparo in response to the ruling issued on May 10, 2011 by the judge of First Court of the First Instance for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment of Guatemala City. In said ruling, the charges filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office (MP) were accepted and the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners were sent to trial. The accused parties, in their actions, pleaded the violation of effective judicial protection, the violation of the right to counsel, and the duty of judges to issue well-founded rulings.