Inequality in the Odebrecht case in Panama

Eliseo Ábrego, a former National Police official, gave his statement before Judge Baloisa Marquínez at the scheduled time. The Human Resources Office of the National Police was able to notify him in time, although he is not part of it, which has caught the attention of defense attorneys because in the case of Rodríguez Araúz it was not. This was the case of Eliseo Ábrego, a former official of the National Police who was summoned for the expert and testimonial phase, who was contacted through the National Directorate of Human Resources despite being retired, a situation that did not occur with Damaris Rodríguez Araúz, a former member of the Division of Crimes against the Public Administration of the Judicial Investigation Directorate (DIJ), although the employment status and summons process was the same. Faced with this scenario, the judge decided to close the period for presenting evidence to begin the arguments stage, in which she assured that the defense attorneys will have the opportunity to exercise their right. The jurists argue that the evidence in which Rodríguez Araúz appears should be dismissed not only because they could not be personally substantiated in the trial, but because they lack technical and professional support since the former official “is not an expert or an accountant”. Three summonses and one official document have been issued regarding Rodríguez Araúz, but none have been received by her person, but by third parties who have also been unable to locate her; therefore, she cannot be cross-examined. The trial of the Odebrecht case was suspended until Monday, February 23, with the Public Ministry at the head of the arguments, which assured that it has been organizing its presentations to be as quick as possible. They assured that the evidence that has not been presented in the hearing should not be part of the file or the final decision; therefore, they will continue to insist on their dismissal during the next procedural stage. Although the proceedings of the Tribunal and the National Police managed to locate the phone number assigned to the former collaborator while she was in service, the device is being manipulated by someone who identified himself as “her lawyer and friend”, claiming that he also does not know her whereabouts. The hearing for the Odebrecht case has shown that when there is an interest in having one of the witnesses appear before the Tribunal, the corresponding instances are exhausted to make it so. The defense attorneys will have up to 1 hour to present their positions, so it is not ruled out that the ordinary hearing for alleged money laundering could be extended until the month of March. They question that the Prosecutor's Office does not have the address, phone number, or email of the former official to send her the summons from the Tribunal and is classified only as “unlocatable” without further explanation due to the importance of her reports in the investigation.