El Tribunal Federal de Suiza rechazó el recurso de Erwin Sperisen y dejó firme la condena de 14 años de prisión contra el exdirector de la Policía Nacional Civil de Guatemala por complicidad en el asesinato de siete reclusos durante un operativo realizado en 2006 en la Granja Penal Pavón. La decisión cierra la vía judicial interna en el país europeo, aunque su defensa anticipó que volverá a recurrir al Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, según información divulgada por EFE.

El exfuncionario, de 56 años y con doble nacionalidad guatemalteca y suiza, dirigió la Policía Nacional Civil entre 2004 y 2007. La acusación lo vinculó con la planificación y ejecución de la operación policial denominada “Pavo Real”, desplegada el 25 de septiembre de 2006 para recuperar el control del penal situado en las afueras de Ciudad de Guatemala.

Durante aquel procedimiento murieron siete presos. La versión oficial sostuvo inicialmente que los reclusos habían fallecido en un enfrentamiento armado con la policía, pero la Justicia de Ginebra concluyó que las muertes fueron ejecuciones.

Las heridas de bala y la versión descartada del enfrentamiento

De acuerdo con EFE, el Tribunal Cantonal de Ginebra determinó en 2024 que los cuerpos presentaban heridas de bala incompatibles con un tiroteo cruzado. Esa valoración fue ratificada por el Tribunal Federal, con sede en Lausana, al desestimar el planteamiento de la defensa sobre la reconstrucción de los hechos.

La apelación de Sperisen se apoyaba en tres argumentos: la presunción de inocencia, la credibilidad de los testigos y una supuesta contaminación de la prueba. La máxima instancia judicial suiza rechazó los tres puntos y consideró que la sentencia dictada el año pasado estuvo “suficientemente motivada” y no incurrió en arbitrariedad.

El exjefe policial también sostuvo que la absolución en Austria de otra persona procesada en relación con el mismo caso debía tener consecuencias favorables para su situación. El tribunal descartó igualmente esa pretensión.

La confirmación de la pena concluye un expediente que atravesó distintas revisiones en los tribunales suizos durante 15 años. El recorrido incluyó una condena inicial a prisión perpetua, una anulación por cuestiones procesales, un segundo juicio y una intervención previa del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

Una causa con condenas anuladas y nuevos juicios

Un tribunal de Ginebra condenó por primera vez a Sperisen a cadena perpetua en 2014. Sin embargo, el Tribunal Federal anuló esa sentencia al detectar problemas de procedimiento, por lo que el caso debió ser juzgado otra vez.

El nuevo proceso celebrado en Ginebra concluyó en 2018 con una condena de 15 años de prisión. Esa resolución tampoco cerró definitivamente el caso, porque el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos consideró en 2023 que el procedimiento no había sido plenamente imparcial.

La decisión del organismo europeo obligó a devolver el expediente a los tribunales ginebrinos. En la nueva sentencia de 2024, el Tribunal Cantonal de Ginebra redujo en un año la pena anterior al considerar que se había vulnerado el derecho a un procedimiento expedito.

Los jueces calificaron aquella infracción como “moderada” frente a la gravedad de los delitos, la complejidad del expediente y sus implicaciones internacionales. Por ese motivo, mantuvieron una disminución limitada respecto de la condena establecida en el juicio anterior.

La resolución del Tribunal Federal avaló esa evaluación y consolidó la responsabilidad penal de Sperisen por su participación en la muerte de los siete internos de Pavón. Con esa decisión, el exdirector policial ya no dispone de recursos dentro de la jurisdicción suiza.

La defensa planea presentar una nueva demanda ante el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, con sede en Estrasburgo. Sperisen ya había obtenido una decisión favorable de ese organismo en 2023, cuando el tribunal europeo cuestionó la imparcialidad del proceso que derivó en la condena de 2018.

hombres,abrigos,maletines,edificio institucional

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., described herself as a member of the «working class» who lives «paycheck to paycheck» during an interview with MS NOW host Chris Hayes on Wednesday night.

«I mean, it’s, you know, working — working class, I guess, like paycheck to paycheck still,» Omar said. «We’ve got four kids, and we live, I think, like a basic life. I have a Toyota Camry that’s from 2016.»

Omar’s characterization of her finances comes despite her $174,000 annual congressional salary and scrutiny over financial disclosures that once listed assets tied to her husband as being worth as much as $30 million.

The comments came during Omar’s first public appearance since Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents searched her Washington, D.C., residence on Oct. 12 as part of an investigation into possible immigration-related offenses.

ILHAN OMAR BELIEVES TRUMP RAID ON HOME WAS MEANT TO ‘INTIMIDATE AND SCARE PEOPLE’ FROM VOTING

Since the raid, the representative has used the investigation twice as a reason to publicly fundraise.

«That goes a long way as we fight Trump and his administration for trying to intimidate me and so many people right before the midterm elections,» Omar said in a video she uploaded to social media on Wednesday. «We know that they’re running scared. We’re not going to be intimidated. We’re not going to be silenced.»

The Democratic National Committee has also sent out its own fundraising email based on Omar’s campaign request for money.

«It’s Ilhan Omar — Trump’s DHS agents just carried out a raid and search of my home,» the email says. «This is a drastic escalation of the ludicrous, partisan investigation that they launched into my immigration status.»

ILHAN OMAR’S WEALTH SCANDAL TAKES A TURN JUST ONE DAY AFTER RAID OF HER DC HOME

Omar also acknowledged during the MS NOW interview that the federal agents who searched her home were «polite» and left the property in good condition, even folding some of her clothes.

«When they left, what did you do?» Hayes asked Omar.

«I just went back around the house just trying to make sure everything was put back,» Omar replied. «And they did a really good job in putting everything back in its place. They actually even folded some of my clothing that [was] not folded. So it was … a very bizarre [situation].»

The Minnesota Democrat added that she thought the HSI agents who raided her home were «intrusive, but polite.»

«And yeah, they, they left the house, I think, you know, in good shape,» she told MS NOW.

Omar claimed during the interview that the federal agents were searching her house for four to five hours. She added that they left the raid with more than a dozen items, including notebooks and a children’s Somali-language phrasebook.

«[That] was why I was surprised when they handed me the receipt for the items that they take in, to do that long of a search and to walk away with 17 items, of like 10 that were just notebooks and, like, old phones. Was such a bizarre, bizarre thing,» Omar said.

A separate Justice Department investigation is examining Omar’s financial disclosures, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said during an appearance on Fox News’ «America Reports.»

The disclosures previously showed that the reported value of two businesses tied to Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, rose from as much as $51,000 in 2023 to as much as $30 million in 2024, according to House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.

Omar later amended the filing, saying the original figures were the result of an accounting error. The amended disclosure listed the couple’s assets at between $18,004 and $95,000. Omar has denied wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed against her in connection with the disclosures.

Mynett’s businesses include eStCru, a winery, and Rose Lake Capital, an investment firm. The winery has reportedly shut down.

ILHAN OMAR RAID SPARKS OMINOUS PREDICTION FROM WATCHDOG: ‘THEY PROBABLY GOT THE GOODS’

On Fox News’ «Sunday Night in America,» Comer told host Trey Gowdy that his committee’s initial review of Omar’s disclosures identified multiple issues that could justify further investigative steps.

«First of all, not only was there a huge discrepancy in the financial disclosure form, there was the winery that was the big base of her $25 million listing on her financial disclosure form,» Comer said. «That winery has, according to the press, been shut down because of fraud.»

In a February letter to Mynett, Comer noted that Omar’s 2023 disclosure listed her stake in eStCru as being worth between $15,001 and $50,000.

«The following year, her financial disclosure form listed a stake in eStCru ‘worth between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000,’» Comer wrote. «There are serious public concerns about how your businesses increased so dramatically in value only a year after reporting very limited assets.»

A rank-and-file House member’s annual salary is $174,000. Members may also participate in the federal Thrift Savings Plan and qualify for a pension under the Federal Employees Retirement System, though eligibility and benefit amounts depend on factors including age, years of service and salary history.

The financial investigation remains ongoing.

politics, ilhan omar, donald trump, homeland security, investigations

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan made the case that recent rulings from the conservative-majority high court are destabilizing democracy, suggesting that it isn’t working «as well as it should.»

The remarks from the liberal justice came during a closed discussion before faculty and students at Catholic University’s law school in Washington, D.C.

The discussion between Kagan and law professor Joel Alicea Alicia, who previously clerked for Justice Samuel Alito, comes just weeks after the Supreme Court began its new term, during which it’s expected to rule in major cases that will determine the scope of gun rights and state election integrity laws, among other issues.

The conversation also comes less than two weeks before the midterm elections as President Donald Trump and Republican state lawmakers have pushed for new congressional maps drawn to favor Republicans and bolster their chances of maintaining control of the House. Democratic-led states have responded by redrawing their own maps, fueling ongoing lawsuits and court battles.

SUPREME COURT KICKS OFF NEW TERM WITH FRESH QUESTIONS OVER ITS LEGITIMACY AND ITS FUTURE

Kagan pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which she dissented, as the beginning of a «race to the bottom.» She argued that the decision, which barred federal courts from invalidating maps solely because they unfairly favor one political party, deprived «masses of citizens» of their «rights to voting equality.»

Kagan suggested that the influx of gerrymandered maps is «driving people away from the center toward the wings, toward the extremes.

«Making what I think is, unfortunately, a too polarized country even more so,» Kagan said.

Kagan also criticized rulings from the previous term, including the court’s decision limiting campaign finance restrictions and its ruling that made it more difficult to draw majority-minority congressional districts under the Voting Rights Act.

«Part of the reason why the court got it wrong was a kind of lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions,» Kagan said.

«I do think in all these areas the court has blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings on how the political system works and has created a democracy that doesn’t work as well as it should.»

DESANTIS SIGNS FLORIDA REDISTRICTING MAP TO POTENTIALLY FLIP 4 HOUSE SEATS RED

Last term, the Supreme Court struck down federal limits on how much state and national political parties could spend in coordination with their candidates.

Meanwhile, Kagan argued in dissent that the limits were necessary to prevent wealthy donors from working around direct contribution caps and that striking them down effectively allowed a political party to become an «alternative checking account» for a candidate.

«The people of America look around this political system and think that all this money chasing all these political candidates is a nightmare,» Kagan said. «And they’re right.»

Kagan, who was appointed to the court by President Barack Obama in 2010, argued that it was in a much better position when there was greater ideological balance.

«There was a period of time where the court was in a better place, and the country was in a better place because the court was more balanced, and it was unclear whether the court could push through anybody’s program.»

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

«Nobody in America thought that the court was in the pocket of any one group or any one party,» she said. «And the court had a kind of legitimacy. When the court has a legitimacy of that kind, it helps to create a stable country.»

However, Kagan pushed back against the characterization that the conservative-leaning court simply rubber-stamped Trump’s entire agenda. She pointed to previous rulings by the high court rejecting birthright citizenship restrictions, tariffs and Trump’s restrictions on mail-in voting.

«It’s why the president sometimes really has not very nice things to say about the court’s decisions and some of my colleagues,» Kagan said.

supreme court, judiciary, politics, midterm elections, voting, elections, republicans elections