Spanish
Santo Domingo. – The communicator Ángel Martínez was transferred this Monday from the “Carcelita” to the Eighth Criminal Chamber of the National District, where an amparo appeal filed by his defense is being heard, which denounces an alleged delay in the notification of a judicial resolution. According to lawyer Carlos Mesa, this delay constitutes a violation of due process.
The case is framed within the legal conflict faced by Martinez, who remains incarcerated at the Provisional Liberty Deprivation Center (Caplip), after being arrested by order of Judge Raymundo Mejia of the First Instruction Court of the National District. The detention was ordered last Thursday after Martinez allegedly uttered offensive expressions during a hearing in which a request for coercive measures was being considered for an accusation of defamation and insult to the detriment of the Minister of Interior and Police, Faride Raful.
You may be interested in: Judge orders detention of communicator Ángel Martínez for verbally assaulting in hearing
In addition to the protection, the communicator's defense presented a habeas corpus, alleging that his detention is illegal. This second appeal will be heard in the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the National District. On hunger strike In parallel to the legal actions, Ángel Martínez, 71 years old, declared a hunger strike as a form of protest. The General Directorate of Penitentiary and Correctional Services (DGSPC) reported that, despite his refusal to eat food, he continues to be supplied with the corresponding medication to treat his high blood pressure and diabetes. According to the medical report from Dr. Joaquín Sardiñas, issued on Sunday morning, the communicator presents signs of weakness and mild to moderate dehydration, but remains conscious and oriented. For her part, the national head of Health of the DGSPC, doctor Gaurys Sisa, indicated that full disposition has been offered so that Martínez's personal doctor evaluates him, if his lawyer considers it necessary. The case continues to generate media attention and legal debate, amid questions about the use of preventive detention in cases related to freedom of expression and alleged breaches of judicial decorum.
