The lawyer also stated that several texts were not translated by sworn translators and do not have the required suitability numbers. “How is the defense going to verify a translation if the original document does not exist and the translator does not meet the legal requirements?”, she questioned. McDonald emphasized that at this stage of the process, it is up to the defense to verify that the evidence is relevant and pertinent. “If we are talking about a dogfight, you cannot bring cats”, she exemplified. “The process has been a disgrace”, the lawyer stated. She also criticized the inquisitorial nature that, in her opinion, has marked the Odebrecht process, which she described as “a disgrace”. Lawyer Guillermina McDonald launched harsh criticisms against the so-called “extraordinary evidence” presented by the Public Ministry in the Odebrecht case, by warning that a large part of that material does not comply with the legal formalities and violates the right of contradiction. According to her explanation, the evidence — mainly sent from the United States — was introduced in a procedural stage in which the defense must review its legality and relevance, not the substance of the content. She recalled that it is a case with multiple causes, so she rejected holding the defense responsible for the duration of the trial. “Prosecution without support” McDonald was emphatic in stating that the prosecution lacks elements to support the accusation and warned that a fair trial cannot be spoken of while the right of contradiction is not fully guaranteed, including the possibility of re-questioning and confronting witnesses. “There cannot be a fair trial when the defense has not been able to exercise the contradiction”, she concluded, recalling that the investigation was developed in a period that she described as “legal obscurantism”, without clear rules or procedural guarantees. However, the volume of the material, close to 20 thousand pages, made it impossible to analyze it in the three business days granted by Judge Baloisa Marquez. “They gave us three days to review thousands of documents and we immediately detected that many of the evidence does not comply with the law”, McDonald stated in an interview granted to NEXTV Canal 21. The lawyer pointed out as one of the main irregularities the inclusion of translated documents without presenting the originals, which prevents verifying the fidelity of the translations. “You cannot bring any paper”.
