The attorney general, Luz Adriana Camargo, She is a lawyer from the University of La Sabana, specialist in Criminal Law and Criminology from the Free University of Colombia.
It has a professional career of more than 35 years, in which she has been a criminal investigation judge, lawyer for the Sectional Directorate of Criminal Instruction of Bogotá and official of the Attorney General's Office, where She was a delegate prosecutor before the criminal judges of the circuit, an assistant prosecutor and a delegate prosecutor before the Supreme Court of Justice.. She worked as an assistant magistrate of the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.
He provided consultancy services to institutions such as Consucol SAS, Corporación Justicia y Democracia, the Forjando Futuros foundations, in association with Indepaz, Intereclecial de Justicia y Paz, the Colombian Commission of Jurists and the Somos Defensores Program. Luz Adriana Camargo has been expert in international litigation before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in cases against several states.
“Who will have the word? The honorable Council of State, that is not so fast, the elected prosecutor will have a lot of time to work. Viviane Morales received the annulment notification a year and a half later. The Council of State may consider that there was no election,” she explained.
Why did the election of prosecutor Viviane Morales fall? In February 2012, the Council of State considered that the change in the regulations in the election that led to the reduction of votes by the Supreme Court was not in accordance with the law.
There are four arguments that the plenary chamber of the Council of State to annul the election of the prosecutor, Viviane Morales, but only one overturned the administrative act of the election: the change of the regulations so that the vote equivalent to two thirds of the 24 judges of the Supreme Court was reached. “The act of election violates higher laws and therefore is affected by nullity,” was the response given by the president of the Council of State, Gustavo Gómez, after announcing the ruling. According to the argument of the Council of State, the number of votes required by the internal regulations of the Supreme Court was not counted. The president of the high court, Gustavo Gómez, said that in the regulations “it is established that for the election of the prosecutor, two-thirds of the votes must be gathered, 16, and the election was made with 14.” At the time of the election, it was difficult to reach this quorum, since five justices were missing from the Supreme Court, which prevented a less close vote.
For her part, former comptroller Sandra Morelli Rico gave her opinion on whether or not Amelia Pérez sought a “little trick” to sabotage the vote of the Supreme Court of Justice.
“If it was a little play, it was missing read the jurisprudence before. The ruling, as mentioned by Dr. Arrubla, whose speaker was Dr. Mario Alario, is really very interesting because it is dedicated to defining the legal nature of what a shortlist is, to what extent the powers of the person billing it extend, of who the structure, it feeds it and when it can be considered that it has lost validity,” said Sandra Morelli Rico, former Comptroller General of the Republic.
“Basically what that ruling tells us is that whoever must make up the shortlist, which in this case is the President of the Republic, has the power to do so, send it to the corporation that must be chosen and until then this administrative act is perfected” Morelli Rico added.
