Judicial Power defends coercion imposed on the Espaillat

Santo Domingo.- The Judge of the Judicial Office of Permanent Attention Services of the National District, Fátima Veloz imposed coercive measures on the brothers Antonio and Maribel Espaillat, accused in the case of the collapse of the roof of the Jet Set Club entertainment center, which resulted in 236 deaths and some 180 injured, a decision based on current procedural regulations, and the principle of criminal legality enshrined in article 40 numeral 14 of the Dominican Constitution and 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

Upon weighing the evidence presented, the judge considered that the siblings Antonio and Maribel Espaillat have sufficient ties, having a known address, stable business activity, family and social ties in the country, while it was not demonstrated that they have facilities to leave Dominican territory nor do they have a history of evasion.

In addition to this, there is the possibility of a penalty to be imposed for the criminal offense of involuntary manslaughter, according to article 319 of the Dominican Republic's Penal Code, which establishes correctional imprisonment of 3 months to 2 years. Therefore, the magistrate considered that it is not appropriate to impose pre-trial detention of 18 months, nor house arrest, as requested by the Public Prosecutor's Office, but rather other measures established by the Criminal Procedure Code. Likewise, the magistrate explains that this assessment is made without prejudging the guilt of the accused, and solely for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of a coercive measure, within the framework of due process guarantees. In her Resolution, Magistrate Veloz explains that the imposition of a coercive measure seeks to guarantee the defendant's submission to the criminal process and that it must be reasonable, proportional and consistent with the instrumental purpose of coercion, which is not to impose penalties, but a precautionary measure. Likewise, the judge stated that in relation to the defendant Antonio Espaillat, although the investigated fact has an objective seriousness due to the magnitude of the damage caused, the penalty provided in case of conviction is up to two years of correctional imprisonment and, in addition, in view of the investigation based on the evidence presented by the technical defense, a conduct of collaboration with the investigation presented by the Public Ministry is noted. Regarding the defendant Maribel Espaillat, who the Public Ministry accuses of directly coercing a witness, the court considered that from the analysis of the content of the conversation provided, neither that action nor alteration of material evidence or destruction of documents is evident, "but rather an ambiguous interaction, which, although it may be ethically reprehensible, does not reach the threshold of a substantial affectation of the evidentiary process." "This Judge understands the importance of highlighting in this process that the Dominican Penal Code, originally enacted in the 19th century and based on the Napoleonic model of 1810, has remained substantially unchanged for more than 140 years, except for partial and specific reforms. This normative longevity has generated a structural disconnection between the legal text and contemporary social, economic, and technological reality, which severely limits its ability to respond to complex and modern criminal phenomena," she asserted. Therefore, he imposed the coercive measure established in the Criminal Procedure Code in its article 226, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, consisting of the imposition of a ban on leaving the country, a financial guarantee of 50 million pesos and periodic reporting; he also declared the case complex. Furthermore, the court upheld the provisional legal qualification proposed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of involuntary manslaughter, in accordance with article 319 of the Dominican Penal Code, considering that the described facts fall within a negligent conduct, characterized by the failure to observe objective duties of care, without having demonstrated the existence of direct, eventual or alternative intent. The measure of coercion
It is recalled that the measure of coercion is a legal instrument that affects the personal or patrimonial rights of the person who is the subject of a criminal investigation; it has a precautionary nature (to prevent), and its purpose is to avoid the removal of the accused from the process.