Disputed Evidence in Panama's Odebrecht Case

Despite this, the legal expert agreed with Marquínez that the evidence phase could not be extended beyond last Friday; however, the witness's name will remain in the rest of the proceedings because she signed two of the statements used by the prosecution to support the case. Lawyer Basilio González believes that Judge Baloisa Marquínez should not consider these documents for her final judgment because they are part of evidence that could not be assessed in the corresponding phase due to the witness's contempt. After what happened with Rodríguez Araúz, the lawyer, part of the legal team of former President Ricardo Martinelli, recalled that the same thing happened with the three Brazilian collaborators who reached an agreement with the prosecution and did not comply with it. The lack of this cross-examination, in the defense lawyers' opinion, undermines the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution, especially the expert report by Antonio Lim, a former police collaborator, who used parts of Rodríguez Araúz's reports to write his document, which includes assessments on financial and accounting aspects without having the necessary experience. Vallarino does not understand how, in one of the country's most important cases—where former presidents, ministers, businesspeople, and high-ranking officials are being tried—the Public Ministry cannot locate witnesses to corroborate its theory and leaves the supposed defendants in total defenselessness. Alfredo Vallarino, for his part, reiterated that if a judgment is to be issued without the defense having exercised its right to cross-examination, the justice system in general would be violated. He pointed out that the purpose of this action was for the witness to support her accusations before the judge, who, by virtue of her office, would attest to the veracity of her statements, but it was not possible to locate her; therefore, her contribution to the case should not be considered as part of the evidence for the ruling. "The prosecution never made an effort to have them here," he assured. "In my opinion, these reports should not be assessed because evidence that has not been evaluated or ratified in a hearing loses much of its value, but I am not the judge," he stated. He added that the Odebrecht case in Panama, since it began, has been "contaminated" because in most of the countries where the Brazilian construction company has been tried, the testimonial assistance that the accusing party intends to use has been annulled, that is, it is invalid, but locally its usefulness is insisted upon. "None of those people received a criminal sanction, they were only fined and they did not pay," he emphasized. The Odebrecht case hearing remains suspended; although it was expected that this week the arguments phase would begin, the development of another case that requires the presence of the prosecution and some defense lawyers caused the session of this Wednesday, February 18, to be postponed to next Monday, February 23, starting at 2:00 p.m. However, this last procedural period will begin with a pending task: the appearance of Damaris Rodríguez Araúz, a former official from the Division of Crimes against the Public Administration of the Judicial Investigation Directorate (DIJ), who, despite having written two of the foundational reports of the investigation, did not appear in court to testify.