The Constitutional Court docket (TC) declared inadmissible the attraction for constitutional assessment of jurisdictional choice filed by the primary lieutenant of the Military of the Dominican Republic (ERD), Yarin Esteudy Novas Sena, sentenced to twenty years in jail, for killing two males who allegedly assaulted him.

The army man’s attraction sought to reverse Ruling No. 1305, issued by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court docket of Justice (SCJ) on 30 October 2019, which confirms the sentence imposed by the judges of the Collegiate Court docket of the Judicial District of Santo Domingo.

Novas Sena was convicted following a December 2014 incident in Los Guaricanos, Santo Domingo Norte, the place he killed Manuel José Crespo Núñez (“El Mello”) and Yarel Jesús Taveras Ulloa (“El Guardia”), who had allegedly assaulted him minutes earlier and robbed him of money and a cellular phone, by gunshot wounds.

Regardless of the TC discovering the attraction legitimate with respect to the submitting deadline (as a result of an incorrect notification to the lawyer reasonably than on to the appellant), the ultimate choice was primarily based on the dearth of satisfactory motivation in Novas Sena’s transient.

ADVERTISING

The Constitutional Court docket granted the Lawyer Normal’s Workplace’s request, which argued that the attraction didn’t adjust to the necessities of Legislation No. 137-11, the Natural Legislation of the Constitutional Court docket.

Arguments of the Constitutional Court docket

The Constitutional Court docket noticed that the appellant restricted himself to invoking an alleged violation of the precept of legality and to issuing “slight, loose and generalized judgments,” resembling: “the court erred in not varying the qualification as it should…”

Absence of Subsumption

Novas Sena restricted himself to transcribing authorized and constitutional articles (resembling articles 321 and 329, paragraph 2) of the Legal Code, and 40.13 of the Structure, with out making any evaluation or connection of stated norms along with his specific case.

Impossibility of Weighing

The courtroom concluded that these superficial questions prevented an “effective weighing” and verification of whether or not the challenged ruling had incurred procedural flaws or violations of basic rights, as required by legislation.

Consequently, the TC declared the attraction inadmissible, implicitly confirming the earlier choice of the Second Chamber of the SCJ. The attraction was declared freed from prices.