Yesterday, the hearing in the Odebrecht case continued at the First Liquidating Court of Criminal Cases in Panama, with the reading of the order to call to trial, amidst challenges from defense attorneys, who requested guarantees for due process and the right to a fair trial. Lawyer Alma Cortés stated that “justice must be objective, scientific, and impartial,” and warned that if Judge Baloisa Marquínez does not ensure the right to confrontation, “the right to defense does not exist.” She explained that some defenses requested these testimonies precisely because they support the prosecution's thesis, and argued that it now falls to the Prosecutor's Office to demonstrate that it has the capacity to produce extraordinary evidence to compensate for this absence. Meanwhile, lawyer Ángel Álvarez affirmed that justice continues to lose credibility when decisions are made without the proper guarantees of prior procedural acts. He also questioned the strength of the file by pointing out that Brazil annulled the proceedings, so —according to him— it is unknown what evidence the Prosecutor's Office currently has. In the same vein, criminal lawyer Guillermina Mc Donald indicated that the defenses are awaiting the Public Ministry to present evidence that fills the existing evidentiary gap, given that testimonies from Brazil constitute the basis of the accusation. In her opinion, the process is affected not by decisions from a foreign country, but by the internal handling of the case, while criticizing the “secrecy and concealment” that she says has become a constant in this judicial process. Meanwhile, lawyer Basilio González considered that the thesis upheld by the Prosecutor's Office lacks sense under the current conditions of the process, insisting that without an effective confrontation and properly incorporated evidence, due process is violated.
