Lawyer questions evidence in Odebrecht trial in Panama. Lawyer Guillermina McDonald expressed her disappointment with the progress of the Odebrecht case trial in Panama and questioned the strength with which the Public Prosecutor's Office reached this stage of the judicial process. According to her explanation, the public had expected to see in the court the irrefutable evidence of corruption and money laundering that had been announced for years as sufficient. However, she stated that this solidity in the evidence has not been reflected, which also limits the defense's ability to respond fully. Due process and inquisitorial system in the final phase. The jurist recalled that the process follows the rules of the inquisitorial system, where the times for knowing the verdict are usually longer than in the accusatorial system. However, she emphasized that the essential thing is not the duration of the trial, but respect for the guarantees of due process established in the Constitution and international treaties, especially now that the case enters its final stage. Doubts about the evaluation of the evidence. In statements to Nextv, Canal 21, McDonald pointed out that Judge Baloisa Marquez faces a 'serious problem' when evaluating the judicial evidence. She explained that if the parties have not been allowed to really review and question that evidence, any decision based on it could be legally questionable. She added that without the right to contradict the evidence, it is difficult to give them the weight that any of the parties intends within the process. Confidence in justice despite the criticism. Despite her questioning, the lawyer assured that she maintains confidence in the Panamanian justice system and in the work of Judge Marquez. She indicated having observed her acting with objectivity in the hearings, resolving objections without favoring either the prosecution or the defense, which she considers a positive sign in a trial that has generated high expectations in public opinion in Panama.
