I am making use of my “right to respond”, in regards to an article published in the past edition of your newspaper, on page 32, and to which I will refer in the following way:

– IN REGARDS TO WHAT WAS PUBLISHED: I understand the goal of journalism and its publications, but I believe that these must always be done in an objective manner and that what is being published must always be true. This is not the case in the article, “Nicoya’s Former Mayor Admits to Offense and Returns Money to the Municipalidad”, whose content and investigation were based on ruling number 81-2010, issued by Guanacaste’s Second Judicial Circuit Court, without even considering that such ruling is not yet final. I submitted a CASSATION APPEAL on June 10th, 2010 and, in addition, there was already an existing REVIEW APPEAL that had been filed before the Supreme Court’s Sala III, in file number 10-000004-0006-PE, on January 7th, 2010 and which has not yet been solved. Therefore, I believe that the correct thing to do would’ve been to wait for the real actions and not rush into publishing a piece and comments based on something that has not even been accepted by the country’s legal system.

– IN REGARDS TO THE CASE ITSELF: The concept of “Full Redress of Damages”, which is included in Article 30, paragraph j) of the Código Procesal Penal (Code of Criminal Procedure) is represented in our legislation as an instrument with which the criminal action is dismissed, meaning that under some circumstances, it prevents the need to hold an oral and public debate. It is important to point out the limited knowledge on Criminal Procedural Law shown by the journalist in charge of researching this article, clearly showing that he lacked a legal consultant. This is obvious in the fact that he published something that is not being applied, showing that he is unaware of the applications of the Full Redress of Damages concept, in which there is no acceptance of the accusations since a debate to prove their existence never took place.

– IN REGARDS TO THE VALIDITY OF WHAT WAS DECIDED: Thereby, for the record, I wish to note that I was not present at the hearing for the ratification of the agreement with the Municipalidad, for three main reasons, the first one being: I was not going to pay for something that I have not taken, second: Article 30, paragraph j) of the Código Procesal Penal (Code of Criminal Procedure) has a social connotation when the common interests or rights of the community are at stake, as is the case, since these are public funds and therefore, from my perspective, the endorsement of the Procuraduría General de la República (Office of the Attorney General of Costa Rica) was necessary to make such an agreement. This aspect was never considered by the Prosecutor’s Office, by the Court and much less by the Municipalidad and third: as a result of my professional background, I could not accept the fact that a REVIEW APPEAL was being processed by the Supreme Court’s Sala III, which has neither been rejected or accepted, for the simple reason that there is convincing evidence that proves this was nothing but a staging conceived under the notion of the “blessed” political jealousy, which fails to take into consideration a person’s feelings and integrity.

Read the original article in out June archives –
Nicoya’s Former Mayor Admits to Offense and Returns Money to the Municipalidad

Opinions expressed in the Voice of Nosara printed newspaper and website are not necessarily those of the Voice of Nosara, its Editors, Publisher, Board or affiliated parties. All letters and opinions are limited to 400 words, and must be signed by the author and include a passport or Identity Card number. The Newspaper has the right to edit and/or not publish letters at their discretion. Thank you.