FGR desists from summoning García Harfuch to appear in the Pegasus case – El Sol de México

Omar García Harfuchformer Secretary of Citizen Security of Mexico City, was spared from giving his statement in the espionage case Pegasusafter the General Prosecutor of the Republic (FGR) withdrew from its original request that Morena’s former candidate for the head of the capital government appear at a hearing.

Within the framework of the hearings held in the South Prison of Mexico City against Juan Carlos García Rivera, former employee of the company Grupo KBH, provider of Pegasus to different agencies of the federal government during the six-year term of Enrique Peña Nieto, the FGR had planned for García Harfusch to give his statement to certify that the then Attorney General’s Office (PGR) had this spyware.

Garcia Harfuch He headed the Criminal Investigation Agency (AIC) of the PGR, today FGR, from September 2016 to June 2019.

The institution presided over by the prosecutor Alejandro Gertz Manero argued before Judge Luis Benítez Alcántara that it was “unnecessary” the appearance of the former capital Secretary of Security and today Morena’s pre-candidate for the Senate of the Republic, since “Your testimony could be repetitive”.

Omar García Harfuch, Cristian Noé Ramírez Gutiérrez, Gustavo Salas Chávez and General Hernández Montealegre were summoned to the Federal Criminal Justice Center of the Reclusorio Sur, to give testimony in the oral trial hearings against Juan Carlos García Riveraformer employee of the KBH Group company, Pegasus supplier to different agencies of the federal government in the six-year term of Enrique Pena Nieto.

➡️ Join the El Sol de México channel on WhatsApp so you don’t miss the most important information

Through Ricardo Sánchez Pérez del Pozo, head of the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for the Attention of Crimes committed against Freedom of Expression (Feadle), the FGR opted for withdraw 31 of the 82 original testimonies that were contemplated in that case, since – he argued – “they could be repetitive or overabundant of issues that have already been proven during previous hearings.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *