The protection granted to Mario Aburto Martínez, admitted murderer of Luis Donaldo Colosio, PRI presidential candidate in 1994, “does not mean exoneration but, if appropriate, execution of the sentence adjusted to the custom determined by the Collegiate Court as appropriate ” , it is based on what was established in the Penal Code of the state of Baja California at the time, said the Federal Institute of Public Defender (IFDP).
The body that is part of the Judicial Branch of the Federation (PJF) released a statement about the protection provided by the First Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters based in Toluca, State of Mexico, and said: “The Ombudsman hopes that in the next days, a new sentence will be issued, which will release Mario Aburto and consider the sentence served based on the appropriate local law.”
The resolution issued on Thursday said it is up to a collegiate court of appeal to issue a new sentence, but this time considering the Penal Code of Baja California enacted in 1994, which imposes a penalty which is 16 to 30 years in prison for the crime of homicide. .
In this way, in March 2024 Aburto will serve 30 years in prison, which means that, if the maximum sentence is imposed, the date will be reached next year.
The judgment of the jurisdictional body issued on October 5 established: “based on the aforementioned typical transfer, analyze the crimes that are the subject of the accusation, as well as the criminal responsibility of the complainant for committing them and impose the corresponding penalties criminal punishment. With the understanding that the already estimated legal situation of the sentenced person cannot worsen. In addition, it is necessary to prove whether, as a result of the normative transfer, the complainant will get his personal freedom part of the criminal case in this matter.
Meanwhile, the IFDP pointed out that at the same time “a criminal investigation remains open on the acts of torture carried out against Mario Aburto,” and that in winning another amparo trial, also presented by the IFDP, “it was established that it should be conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office that specializes in matters of torture and that should still be integrated to establish the relevant responsibilities.”
