Martinelli's Lawyers on Odebrecht Case: Prosecutor's Office Has Not Provided Evidence

The former president's lawyers stated that, by legal obligation, the Prosecutor's Office must individualize the accusations; therefore, together with the other lawyers forming the defense of the former president, they will analyze the facts attributed to him regarding campaign donations received in 2009, when he was not yet a public official. Meanwhile, lawyer Carlos Carrillo indicated that the Prosecutor's Office's evidentiary gaps are both general and individual because the evidence presented in the previous phase demonstrates that his client, former ruler Ricardo Martinelli, never received funds to conceal their origin; on the contrary, they were reported to the competent institutions. In his opinion, the Prosecutor's Office has failed the public that believed it had a 'strong case' when the evidence proves otherwise and the witnesses have refused to support their accusations before the Tribunal. The defense lawyers point out that during this period, the Prosecutor's Office must argue its theory in an individualized manner, that is, it will determine the degree of responsibility of each of the alleged involved; however, it is essential that the specific role played by each is mentioned to establish the degree of guilt or innocence of the same. In addition, most of the case is based on evidence dismissed in Brazil, the country of origin of the Norberto Odebrecht construction company, which means that at the local level, they lack legal support; therefore, they should not be considered by Judge Marquínez to issue her final decision unless they serve as a basis for admissible evidence. He reiterated that true justice is not measured by the intensity of public clamor, but by fidelity to due process and judicial guarantees, rights that he hopes will be respected in the conclusive phase of the case. The trial of the Odebrecht case began yesterday, Monday, with the presentation of the arguments, a phase that, according to lawyer Ángel Álvarez, requires the Tribunal not to limit itself to hearing the presentations, but to assume the superior responsibility of listening with depth and balance to each of the parties so that its final decision is based on what the legal framework establishes, not on media pressures that seek guilty parties without evidence. 'That responsibility should not be imputed to the Public Ministry,' he stressed. 'Let him feel completely free to apply the law and right according to his legal conscience, without being conditioned by the noise from the stands or by any external pressure,' he pointed out to Panamá América.