Prosecutors had charged De Vido because his signature appeared on several decrees and resolutions related to the case. The judges pointed out that: “Focusing on the characteristics of each other, we must note that, on the one hand, the decrees in which the defendant (De Vido) intervened during the presidency of Néstor Kirchner were issued by general agreement of ministers and informing the Honorable Congress for its subsequent validation, and that each time in any of them it was decided to modify the trust regime created by Decree No. 976/2001, by case, to affect said source to the payment of certificates of road infrastructure works in which the DNV participated, these were duly identified.In such conditions, based on the intrinsic legality of those presidential resolutions issued at the proposal of the DNV, De Vido’s intervention cannot be legally disapproved, let alone when the prosecution failed to identify any probative point, direct or indicative, that would account for the fact that De Vido, despite his normative behavior appropriate entity, knew the apparent legality of those presidential measures, that is, that it was aware of the true aims pursued and that even so decided to act motivated against the legal right protected by the corresponding type (to which we will return later and that has been decisive for the officials with respect to whom the judgment of reproach was the reverse)”.
Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more
