As a grim, somber, scandalous, extremely serious, cruel to the extreme case, a kind of collective frenzy and collective holocaust, the permanent attention judge Rigoberto Sena Ferreras, qualified the case of the multimillion-dollar fraud in the National Health Insurance (SENASA). “When one goes to the State to drain its institutions, it constitutes an act of treason, firstly, to the Dominican people, whom it must serve with love and respect, because the decree that the President of the Republic grants, designating a certain official in a service institution, is a product or consequence of the power that the people gave to the president in office,” said Magistrate Sena when motivating his decision. “This is a gruesome, somber, scandalous, extremely serious, cruel to the extreme case; it’s a kind of collective frenzy, a collective holocaust. You conspired with close collaborators even before assuming the position to which you were appointed, associating with identified business people to deeply damage a sensitive institution dedicated to caring for and protecting the health of more than 7.5 million Dominicans,” the judge considered. The judge of permanent attention imposed 18 months of preventive prison to Santiago Marcelo F. Hazim Albainy, former director of SeNaSa and ringleader of the corruption network, as well as to Gustavo Enrique Messina Cruz, Francisco Iván Minaya Pérez, Germán Rafael Robles Quiñones, Rafael Luis Martínez Hazim, Ada Ledesma Ubiera and Ramón Alan Speakler Mateo. For the defendants Cinty Acosta Sención, Heidi Mariela Pineda Perdomo and Eduardo Read Estrella, the judge imposed house arrest, financial guarantees and a ban on leaving the country. Wilson Camacho represented the Public Ministry along with court attorney Mirna Ortiz, head of the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for the Prosecution of Administrative Corruption (Pepca), as well as prosecutors Rosa Alba García, Enmanuel Ramírez, Yudelka Holguín, Alexis Piña, Ernesto Guzmán and Aurelio Valdez. Complete Motivation Complex Case: All defenses consisted of the application of the complex case, except for the defense of Mr. Santiago Marcelo Hazim Albainy, alleging its unconstitutionality, because it violates the principle of proportionality, because the term of the complexity is doubled for the public prosecutor’s office and they are given a total of 8 months, not requiring a coercive measure beyond 8 months, if it were the case of preventive detention.
Certainly, Article 377, numeral 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code Law 97-25 stipulates that in the event of declaring a complex case, the ordinary term of preventive detention is extended to a maximum of eighteen months and, in the event of a conviction, to six more months.
But, previously, the ordinary legislator requires certain requirements to apply this procedure, namely: plurality of facts, the high number of defendants or victims, or cases of organized crime. This indicates that a process of these characteristics profoundly disrupts the legal order of society and the collective and particular interest, therefore, the term provided by the aforementioned rule for pre-trial detention is in accordance with the nature of the process in question, which is why the Constitution of the Republic states in article 40 numeral 9, that coercive measures, restrictive of personal freedom, are of an exceptional nature and their application must be proportional to the danger they seek to safeguard. With the application of the conclusive acts of a complex process, the danger of the process, the danger of the evidence, and the social and particular danger often do not disappear. Rejects the exception of unconstitutionality requested by the defense mentioned above, therefore, we declare the present process complex, therefore, we apply the terms provided for in article 377 of Law 97-05 which establishes the Criminal Procedure Code. Variation of the preventive prison coercion measure by alternative coercion measures for three defendants: The public prosecutor’s office, in an in-voice hearing, changed its original opinion of preventive detention to alternative coercive measures of house arrest, prohibition of departure, financial guarantee through an insurance contract, and real coercive measures. The plaintiffs adhered to the variation of these conclusions of the public prosecutor’s office in the hearing, except for the complaint filed by the Primero Justicia foundation and the national convergence against the theft of social security, who reiterated in their reply that preventive detention should be maintained for all the accused in this process. Those of the benefited defendants rejected the request of the aforementioned plaintiffs. The first thing is that these plaintiffs only raise their complaint against an accused person who benefited from the variation made by the public prosecutor in a hearing of alternative coercive measures, which is the accused Eduardo Read Estrella, the other accused persons benefited by the public prosecutor, that is, Cinty Acosta Sención and Heidi Mariela Pineda Perdono are not included in the aforementioned complaint.The second thing is, that according to article 169 with its first paragraph of the Constitution of the Republic: “the Public Prosecutor’s Office is the body of the justice system responsible for formulating and implementing the criminal prosecution policy against crime, directing the criminal investigation and exercising public action on behalf of society.”
Paragraph I. In the exercise of its functions, the Public Ministry will guarantee the fundamental rights that assist citizens, promote alternative dispute resolution, provide for the protection of victims and witnesses, and defend the public interest protected by law.”The third point is that articles 230 and 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code Law 97-25 stipulate that “at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the complainant, the judge may impose only one of the coercive measures provided for in article 230 or combine several of them, as appropriate to the case, and issue the necessary communications to guarantee their compliance”.
And paragraph II of the aforementioned rule is clear in stating: “in cases of public action, the coercive measure only proceeds at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.” In court, the public prosecutor stated that these defendants have cooperated with the public prosecutor not only in admitting their responsibility but also in providing evidence to the public prosecutor that has been relevant to the investigation, therefore they have decided to request alternative measures because they do not pose a danger to the investigation. Add the court in the same way that the public prosecutor is the director of the investigation of public action cases on behalf of the entire society, that if for this the information that these defendants have provided and the evidence they have delivered has been of high impact for the process, it seems reasonable to us that the public prosecutor requests alternative coercive measures, because whoever behaves in this way in the middle of a process gives to understand that he wishes to face his process, that he wishes to mitigate in one way or another the damage that his acts contrary to the law have caused to society. The court wants to make it very clear and established that it has not presented or approved any agreement between the public prosecutor’s office and these parties, only the public prosecutor’s office decided to request alternative coercive measures for the contribution they have made to the progress of the investigation case.About the case analysis, introductory aspects:
What the Bible says about the excessive love of money:
The biblical text of 1 Timothy 6:10 says: “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” This verse warns that the root of all evil is the love of money, and not money itself. The excessive desire for money can lead people to stray from their faith and cause themselves much suffering.Money isn’t bad: The verse clarifies that the love of money is the problem, not money as a tool. Money itself can be a tool for doing good, according to the Bible.
Leo Tolstoy
More Read
How much land does a man need:
It’s a parable about greed and excessive ambition, narrating the story of Pahom, a peasant who, insatiable, always desires more land, pursuing possessions until his greed leads him to his death when trying to encompass too much land in one day, discovering in the end that the only land he really needed was the small plot for his grave, revealing that true happiness is not in material accumulation.Story Summary
The Beginning: Pajom, a peasant, complains about his lack of land and dreams of having possessions, believing that with them he would be happy and fear the devil.
The Opportunity: He learns about the Bashkirs, a people who offer a lot of land to anyone who can traverse it in a day, with the condition that at sunset they must return to the starting point, marking their path with a shovel.
Unleashed Ambition: Pajom accepts the challenge and, blinded by greed, runs tirelessly, marking an increasingly large perimeter, ignoring the heat and fatigue, wanting to encompass more and more. The tragic end: Exhausted, he barely manages to return in time, falling dead just as he reaches his starting point.The moral: His servant, while digging his grave, realizes the irony: the man who sought infinite possession only needed a small plot of two meters long to rest eternally, demonstrating that human greed has no limits, but the real need is minimal.
Pepe Mujica: example of decency in the exercise of politics: a) “Do you want money? Don’t be politicians.” “Politics is for serving.” b) “Poor are those who want more, those for whom nothing is enough. Those are poor, because they get into an infinite race. Then they won’t have the time of life.” Politics is to serve others with love, passion, dedication, above all to serve the most needy, the most vulnerable, it is not an exercise to serve oneself with both hands and without any scruples. In life there is no act that creates more satisfaction than serving others with love. Politicians and pseudo-entrepreneurs must understand once and for all that their sacred duty is to serve society, to serve the homeland, which is our big house, that we must take care of with love and dedication the nation that is the only one we have, that we must strengthen public institutions, so that the social and democratic State that organizes the Constitution works, because when acts like this occur, the official who bribes or engages in extortion is as guilty as the entrepreneur who in one way or another agrees to carry out the bribe or extortion.As the patriot Juan Pablo Duarte said: “Let us work for and for the homeland, which is to work for our children and for ourselves”.
More Read
What is gained by it, what benefit does it produce, because in addition to the public scrutiny to which it is subjected, it is subjected to a complex process, where it can lose its freedom for several years and lose its assets, then is all this worth it…
Being subjected to a criminal process is not easy at all, losing your freedom and the enjoyment of other rights that this entails, involving your family in this ordeal, is highly stressful and sad, because you practically lose everything, as Francesco Carnelutti says, in his work “The Miseries of the Criminal Process”. “The poorest of all the poor is the prisoner.”Specific argumentative criteria of the case:
The public ministry has presented a preliminary investigation for the request for coercive measures and a serious, in-depth, detailed complex case, with the linking of evidence of a different nature that encompasses all the accused in the present case, evidence not only with legal characteristics, but also with a high evidentiary arsenal, of high weight, proof of which is that it presents in its request 51 testimonial evidence, 3 expert evidence, 135 documentary evidence, 3 audiovisual evidence, 46 material evidence and 66 procedural evidence. And some of those offered witnesses were protagonists of the mafia network against Senasa, such is the case of witness number 23, who is Mr. José Pablo Ortiz Giraldez, in the evidentiary claim the public ministry expresses that the director of Senasa appointed this witness as the exclusive intermediary to demand and collect illegal commissions of 25 to 30 percent of the amount of the contracts awarded. These points were corroborated by three of the accused in court, that this witness was the person in charge of demanding and collecting the bribes that were presented there. Another highly relevant testimony from the public ministry is number 1 of its request for coercive measures and complex case, the public ministry states in its evidentiary claim, that it will prove the existence of a corruption and fraud structure led by the executive director of SeNaSa, Santiago Hazim, the Legal Consultant, Germán Robles, the Financial Manager Gustavo Messina, as well as the participation of Francisco Iván Minaya, mainly in the context of the management and analysis of expenditure, and his role in special programs, as well as codes or contracts were awarded to PSS, the systematic sabotage of essential technological projects to control spending and detect fraud (such as SaludCore and the anti-fraud platform), the illegalities and irregularities in special programs such as nutritional supplements. In addition, the manipulation and concealment of SeNaSa’s financial situation by senior management will be proven. The witness details how the undervaluation of debts in the borderó and the overvaluation of reinsurance accounts receivable were practiced, with the aim of minimizing losses and underreporting technical reserves. These actions resulted in the alteration of the Financial Statements (reporting losses of RD$2,077MM when the real ones were around RD$8,000MM in 2024) and a significant delay in payment to the PSS. Likewise, other highly relevant testimonies are numbers 2 and 3 from the ladies, Nidia Esmeralda Valdez De Luna and Elsa Beatriz Santana Gantier. Describing evidentiary claims, such as: a) the creation of the Medical Contracting Committee in November 2020, a parallel decision channel was established through a WhatsApp chat managed by Johana Fernández, Hazim’s assistant, where “VIP” cases sent by the Executive Directorate were prioritized. Valdez De Luna will declare that Dr. Hazim made the final decisions, justifying the hiring of providers who did not meet the requirements with arguments such as “he had political commitments and we had to help him” or “he contributed to the campaign”, and that when he did not attend, his representative Johanna Fernández used key phrases such as “that’s from Olympus” or “he came backed” to indicate which providers should be approved. b) Likewise, a Contracting Committee was implemented and a “matrix of cases of the executive direction” was established that allowed processing requests from suppliers referred directly by the Executive Direction, including Santiago Hazim, Germán Robles, Guílamo and Dr. Minaya, through their assistants Johana Fernández or Johanna Grullón. Santana Gantier. In short, each and every one of the testimonial evidence offered by the public prosecutor’s office is interconnected with the factual account of the request for coercive measures presented by the public prosecutor’s office, they are conclusive evidence that, without a doubt, according to the claims of each of them, encompass, collect and intend to prove, the criminal activities of each of the accused described in the request for coercive measures and the complete case, which indicates that the court is in a position to issue coercive measures against the accused. The Public Ministry, in the same way, offers 3 expert testimonies. From the analysis made by the court of each of the expert testimonies offered, and from the testimonial and documentary evidence, without a doubt, it connects the theory presented by the Public Ministry in its request for coercive measures and complex case, that is: a) that the accused created an organized crime structure; b) obstructed internal transparency; c) that they created fraudulent special programs for bribes; d) altered the financial statements chronically; e) that the accused carried out the diversion of funds from the National Health Insurance; f) that they instrumentalized and subordinated technology personnel; g) that they captured and recruited key officials and technicians from Senasa for the criminal plot; h) that they violated internal financial controls, such as the direct manipulation of the Bordereau (record of pending claims), violating the accounting controls of the institution to hide the true dimension of the deficit. The financial manager was the operational person in charge of carrying out the systematic sub-registration of financial obligations, creating a falsified financial record database; i) they generated fraudulent maneuvers that had an impact on their technical reserves that, according to documentary evidence, amounts to RD$ 15,921,369,659.62 until the end of the 2024 period; j) fraudulent contracts in exchange for bribes; k) they constituted a network of shell companies to carry out money laundering operations of the assets obtained in the millionaire bribery schemes; i) illegally negotiated provider codes; m) that they issued thousands of fictitious invoices; n) that they carried out a mechanism for converting the assets obtained; o) produced, according to the Public Ministry, external concealment and accounting fraud; p) materialized fraudulent operations and money laundering with obligated subjects; q) possibly laundered assets at their aggravated level; r) challenged and disregarded the control bodies; s) paid a fraudulent increase in billing to SeNaSa as a result of over-treatment of patients, such as the cases of oncology patients, inflating the number of radiotherapy and chemotherapy sessions; t) acquired assets in the name of front men; u) manipulated the loyalty of Minor officials; v) obstructed the investigation, all reiterated as stated by the Public Ministry that the court has been able to contact not only in the factual account but with the supporting evidence of the request for coercive measures and complex case.The arguments of the defense bar:
The defense of Gustavo Enrique Messina Cruz states, among other things, that there is no evidence of any illicit assets in the name of his client, that there is no bribery or money laundering against his client, that he is not mentioned in the medical contracting committee, that the young women who accuse him do so in order to seek an agreement, that there is evidence of his client giving instructions to his subordinates to carry out the crimes alleged by the public prosecutor’s office, that there is no user registration, that the fraudulent practices continued even after his resignation. However, the evidence as a whole offered by the public prosecutor’s office indicates the opposite, that the function performed by this defendant in Senana, and that the acts against the law committed by the indicated defendant, according to the public prosecutor’s office, were key to the development of the practices of this criminal plot, especially his active participation in the events, is evidenced by the documentary evidence numbers 25, 26 and 38 offered by the public prosecutor’s office, his possible participation in the events, as stated by the public prosecutor’s office in numeral 242 of its request for coercive measures, this defendant in his capacity as financial director of the National Health Insurance (SENASA), during the period August 2020 to September 2024, exercised absolute and personalized control over the Bordereau list of all authorizations issued pending payment), manipulating it with the aim of distorting the financial reality and concealing the losses that were generated in the reported amounts. This is a criminal act of high magnitude to the detriment of the most vulnerable in the country, because it denied the right to health to more than 70 percent of the Dominican population, it does not matter that the criminal plot that operated in Senasa continued to operate after his resignation, this does not free him from his criminal acts described by the public prosecutor’s office in its coercive measure. The defense of the accused Francisco Ivan Minaya Pérez, stated, among other points, that the accused undertakes to appear before the court upon release, that he is a diabetic person, that he is a person dedicated to the exercise of his profession, that those accused declared that this accused supervised the health management that were under his orders. The public ministry states in number 28 of its request for a coercive measure that, “Francisco Iván Minaya, health manager, who approved agreements, led the meetings of the Committee of Contractors of Providers that the accused Santiago Hazim Albainy fraudulently created and validated processes, even though there were reports showing that certain providers did not meet the requirements.” In numeral 29, the Public Ministry expresses in its request for a coercive measure that, “the Public Ministry has been able to verify that the accused Santiago Marcelo Hazim Albainy, Francisco Iván Minaya, Germán Robles, along with Roberto Canaán and Carmen José Velázquez, constituted an illicit association within the National Health Insurance (SENASA), aimed at manipulating and controlling the contracting processes of health providers, substituting technical criteria for political, personal and economic criteria, and selling decisions through bribes, in flagrant violation of the law, public ethics and the interests of the Dominican State. This is a systematic, sustained and structured conduct that fully compromises the criminal responsibility of each of those involved.” All of the above is supported by the evidence offered as a whole, which suggests that this defendant’s participation in the criminal trafficking described by the prosecution is of the highest order; therefore, we reject the arguments and conclusions of the technical defense. The defense, of the accused Ramón Alán Speakler Mateo, and Rafael Luis Martinez Hazim, express among other things, that it is a case of economic crime, that the company of their clients did not have a stellar participation, that they have no connection with the facts, that Mr. Rafael Luis Martinez Hazim, has no familiarity with Santiago Hazim. The public ministry states in numeral 221 of its request for a coercive measure, “through this fraudulent billing scheme, the defendants Rafael Luis Martínez Hazim and Ramón Alan Speakler Mateo appropriated the approximate sum of DOP$ 15,000,000.00”. This is supported by the different means of evidence offered by the public ministry, such as evidence 13, 42, 57, 121, 122, of the so-called documentary evidence, as well as testimonial and expert evidence. The aspect of the possible family connection of Mr. Martinez Hazim with Santiago Hazim is not relevant to the court; what is important is his participation or not in the criminal plot investigated by the public prosecutor’s office. His connection or not with an accused does not constitute, in the judgment of the judge, either an aggravating or mitigating factor of responsibility. The defense of Mrs. Ada Ledesma Hubiera, in its arguments, states that the 38 million that the accused sold to Senasa was paid to suppliers of goods for Senasa. That selling to the State is not a crime. That she has no assets. Well, the fact that the money received through a contract via Senasa she paid it in goods for Senasa, that is a fact that the defense and the accused will have to demonstrate, because the budgets that she presented, which was the opportunity for the accused to disassociate herself from this process, that circumstance is not evident, there are only some copies of invoices for some goods supposedly addressed to Senasa, but they are few, they do not reach the amount received, they do not have the legible seal or signature of who receives. On the other hand, selling to the State is not a crime, the crime is that you are part of, as confirmed by the public prosecutor’s office, a criminal network to drain the State’s finances. The fact that the accused has no assets is something that must also be proven by the defense. Mr. Germán Rafael Robles Quiñones’ defense centered its arguments on the fact that his client did not administer funds, that he did not participate in the criminal structure, and that the rewarded informers must be corroborated by other evidence. Well, the court has already established from the body of evidence supporting the request for coercive measures, that most of it is binding on this co-defendant, this defendant, in addition to being mentioned by two of the defendants who admitted their participation in the criminal acts in court, as the person who served as an instrument to carry out part of the extortion of the bribes, acting under the orders of Mr. Santiago Hazim. Similarly, the public ministry expresses in numeral 28 of the measure request that “Germán Robles, legal consultant, who exercised a determining power, imposing the approval of preferential providers and directly managing contracts outside the regular procedure”… Finally, the public ministry expresses in its request for a coercive measure, numeral 63: “When José Pablo Ortiz Giráldez faced judicial difficulties, the criminal structure did not stop; on the contrary, it reorganized itself internally. It is there that the accused Germán Rafael Robles Quiñones, legal director of the National Health Insurance (SENASA), enters, who fully assumed the role of receiver of the illicit payment of 30%, continuing the bribery scheme smoothly and without alterations. The accused Germán Rafael Robles Quiñones received more than Five Hundred Thirty-Six Million pesos 00/100 (RD$536,000,000.00) in cash, delivered directly to him by the accused Cinty Acosta Sención, in different places, such as at the residence and in the office of the accused Germán Rafael Robles Quiñones, and at the residence and office of the accused Cinty Acosta Sención. This happened between the year 2022 and the year 2023 inclusive.” It follows that we are in the presence of a leading protagonist in the commission of each and every one of the crimes exposed by the public prosecutor in its request for coercive measures, all of this is supported by the majority of the evidence presented against him. Mr. Santiago Marcelo Hazim Albainy’s defense established that he is being charged with assets that belonged to the family, including a property that was purchased with a loan; he also stated that no one can directly point to him and say that he gave them money. The court reiterates that, according to the factual theory of the public prosecutor, this defendant is the leader of the mafia structure that undermined the finances of Senasa, that three of the defendants who admitted their participation in the events, pointed out that the people who requested extortion from the contractors, José Pablo Ortiz and Germán Rafael Robles Quiñones, did so on orders from Santiago Marcelo Hazim Albainy. The public ministry in its request for a coercive measure in its numeral 17 states: “All the fraudulent maneuvers described above begin on the twenty-first (21st) of the month of August of the year two thousand twenty (2020), when by Decree number 377-20, Dr. Santiago Marcelo Hazim Albainy was appointed as Executive Director of the National Health Insurance (SENASA). Since his arrival, he surrounded himself with a close circle of friends and collaborators with whom he established in the institution a structured and functional criminal network, through which he designed a scheme of institutionalized corruption, characterized by the receipt of bribes, the falsification of the content of the financial statements, manipulation of the accounting accounts (bordereau), creation of fraudulent programs, privatization of primary care, coalition of officials, malfeasance, and fraud to the detriment of the Dominican State itself, which he was obliged to serve and protect.” The fraudulent action carried out by the accused described above, according to the public prosecutor’s office, amounts to more than fifteen billion pesos, affecting the most vulnerable population in the country. This is serious, very regrettable that a person who was first appointed to serve that vulnerable layer of the population, secondly, in their condition as a doctor makes an oath to serve with love above all to the most needy, thirdly, according to the budgets presented, suffers from some health situation, which indicates that they had the triple condition of being more sensitive, but it was not so, their actions moved away from all criteria of solidarity, of love for their neighbor.About the legal qualification:
The attack on the qualification that some of the defenses raise, especially that no crimes have been committed against persons, the court understands that these qualifications are of a provisional nature due to the primary stage in which the process is; but in addition to the factual account presented and the evidence offered, the qualifications granted by the public ministry, in the judgment of the judge, are subsumed; likewise, to attack the health of the majority of the Dominican people, of more than 7.5 million Dominicans, of vulnerable Dominicans, if it does not constitute a crime against persons, then the judge does not know what a crime against persons is, this is an act of high cruelty against the majority of Dominicans. Defense Budgets: The defense budgets as a whole demonstrate the family, professional, business, and social roots that the defendants as a whole have, which is not a controversial point; however, are these budgets sufficient to counteract the dangers of flight? Firstly, article 231 numeral 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code Law 97/25 tells us that the circumstances of the particular case must be assessed for the existence of the danger of flight. This is a sui generis, special case, because it appears to be the first case in Dominican judicial history where so many people are affected at the same time.Numerals 3, 4, and 9 of Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code, instruct us to observe for the risk of flight, a) the seriousness of the act being imputed, the damage caused to the victim and society, as well as the penalty that may be imposed on the accused in case of conviction; b) the importance of the damage that must be compensated and the attitude that the accused voluntarily adopts towards it; c) when dealing with cases of organized crime.
Therefore, due to the characteristic of the process, all the conditions that allow for the risk of escape are present, so the presented budgets yield to such requirements.The material defenses of the accused:
Some of the accused and their defenses raised in their defense material, their health condition, their attachment to family, that they have no connection to the crimes described by the public prosecutor’s office, among other things. Regret helps you rectify your conduct for the crimes committed, but it is necessary and prudent to think beforehand about the consequences of criminal conduct, to think, this can lead me to lose my freedom and separate me from my family for a long time, after which it does not have as much effect except for the correction of behavior. Similarly, the health situation presented by some defendants and their defenses is not demonstrated with medical and scientific criteria that facing their process deprived of liberty their lives would be at imminent risk. The more or less serious illness that could be observed within the presented budgets is the one described in the medical certifications of Mr. Santiago Hazim, which states, among other things, that he suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS). The investigation carried out by the court regarding this medical situation is that, “multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune disease of the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) where the immune system damages myelin (covering of nerve cells), disrupting messages between the brain and the body, causing symptoms such as vision problems, weakness, numbness, balance and fatigue, which vary greatly between people and often include relapses and remissions. Although there is no cure, there are treatments to control symptoms, slow progression, and improve quality of life.” For such reasons, the court rejects the allegations and conclusions of the technical and material defenses made in that direction…Special reasons for the request for the coercive measure:
The requirements demanded by article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Law 97/25, are present, that is, there is sufficient evidence to reasonably maintain that the accused is, with probability, the author or accomplice of an offense; there is a risk of flight based on a reasonable presumption, by assessment of the circumstances of the particular case, about whether the accused might not submit to the procedure; the offense attributed to him is punishable by imprisonment. Likewise, following the path of the first of article 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Law 97/25, “coercive measures are of an exceptional nature and can only be imposed by means of a reasoned and written judicial resolution, for the absolutely indispensable time and in order to ensure the presence of the accused in the procedure, avoid the destruction of evidence relevant to the investigation and protect the victim and witnesses of the process”. Following that same line of thought, article 40 numeral 9 of the Constitution orders us, “coercive measures, restrictive of personal freedom, are of an exceptional nature and their application must be proportional to the danger they seek to safeguard.” For all the foregoing, we order the coercive measures described in the operative part of this decision against all the accused, as they are the most appropriate for the case.
