The review commission of the Chamber of Deputies unusually annulled the unanimous vote approving the constitutional accusation against Supreme Court Judge Diego Simpértegui due to an error in delivering key documents. Commission President Maite Orsini decided to repeat the vote on Thursday after confirming that a crucial piece of evidence arrived on time but was not reported. This postpones the plenary session until next Monday.
In a decision deemed irregular by some jurists, the review commission of the Chamber of Deputies annulled on Wednesday the unanimous vote (4 in favor) recommending approval of the constitutional accusation against the suspended Supreme Court Justice Diego Simpértegui. The reason was an administrative error by secretary Roberto Fuentes, who failed to inform President Maite Orsini (FA) that the evidentiary documents from the judge's defense had arrived within the established deadline.
These documents include transfer receipts and deposits that, according to the defense, prove Simpértegui paid out of pocket for passages on two Mediterranean cruises alongside lawyers Mario Vargas and Eduardo Lagos, linked to the Belaz-Movitec consortium in the so-called 'Belarusian plot'. Orsini argued that without this evidence, the vote was not properly informed. 'I have to reconsider my decision, I want to hear from the defense lawyer to clarify the documents he sent,' the deputy stated in a press point, flanked by Chamber General Secretary Miguel Landeros and Fuentes.
'Orsini explained: 'The evidence seems to indicate that the minister covered the cost of both cruises with his own resources. There are also statements from the minister's wife showing various charges, including two to Latam airline for USD 1,200 each, and other hotel payments in the Mediterranean.' She added that this might not constitute 'new abandonments' for some parliamentarians.
Deputy Daniel Manouchehri (PS), the libel's promoter, downplayed the document's impact: 'The payment made by Simpértegui to attend the cruises is not a compelling argument for the constitutional accusation. Who paid for the passage was never in question.' However, he expressed surprise at repeating the vote: 'This all seems odd to me. A situation that is normally settled by the Chamber of Deputies, despite these administrative issues.'
The new vote is scheduled for Thursday at 11:00 a.m., with the defense lawyer's presentation, and the plenary session is set for Monday at noon. Previously, on Tuesday, the commission heard from Judge Mario Carroza, who offered a mea culpa: 'We have not had good behavior' from the Judiciary, and former Judge Guillermo Silva, who stressed judicial impartiality: 'Impartiality is essential in a judge.' Carroza supported congressional oversight: 'Congressional oversight is correct.'
This situation raises suspicions about potential changes in the final outcome of the accusation in the plenary.
