.jpeg){kind=small}
The debate started with the advocate 1 of Colombia (applicant) that presented the opening statements and added to the case facts and details. After the first advocate explained the case, advocate 2 imposed herself by her strong opinions and her convincing ability to present the facts. Furthermore, there were highlighted the crimes of De La Torre, a Peruvian politician. Lastly, advocate 3 continued to strengthen their arguments and to expose the laws that were violated by the accused. Although the accusation, the bench of Peru didn’t have any question so the trial continued with the opening statements of advocate 1 of Peru.
The bench of Peru strongly presented facts, arguments and even accusations such as: “Colombia didn’t have the authority to classify Raul Haya De La Torre a politic refugee”. The second advocate supports the fact that the Colombian Government should extradite the Peruvian citizen in Peru to be charged for the common crimes he made on Peruvian soil.
After the both benches presented their statements, it was time for the evidence and the judges’ questions. An interesting question was asked by the Peruvian judge: “What means for Colombia common crime and a political one?” and a following up was asked. Another relevant idea was debated during the trial: “Why doesn’t Colombia agree with letting the accused return to Peru for being investigated?” and “Why De La Torre wasn’t judged in Peru?” . Both questions were answered by the advocates of Colombia who motivated their decisions with the fact that the accused asked political asylum for his one safety. So the bench of Colombia clearly highlighted that De La Torre didn’t feel safe in his country.
The questions were followed by the witnesses’ testimonies, a remarkable one being Advocate 3’s witness who forcefully suggested why Raul Haya De La Torre should be convicted for political offenses.
Finally, I had the amazing occasion to talk with advocate 2 of Colombia about this interesting trial:
M.H: “What is the main reason Colombia wants to convict Mr. Raul Haya De La Torre for a political crime and not a common one?
Advocate 2: “One reason to convict Mr. Raul Haya De La Torre for a political crime was because he was a political offender first off all. Related to what the bench of Peru had said, he was charged with military rebellion which is distinctly different from a common crime.”
M.H: “What are the advantages for Colombia to have a political refugee like Mr. De La Torre?
Advocate 2: “The only benefit we have from this is saving a men’s life. This man faced a possible prosecution in Peru, that was his situation at the time and his conviction as a political offender was threatening for his life. So the only benefit were taking from this is protecting his life and his personal integrity.”
M.H: “Even both parts accuse Mr. De La Torre for breaking the law for multiple times, how do you explain the fact that the both benches declare a totally different nature of the crimes?”
Advocate 2: “The crimes which Mr. De La Torre had acknowledge committed are strictly political ones which according to all the conventions we had talked about political offenders are entitled to political asylum, that’s the definition of a political asylum, so this is entitled for his rights. So, yes, we have acknowledged only his political crimes.”
Comments