Former president of the National College of Lawyers (CNA), Juan Carlos Araúz, warned when analyzing one of the most complex money laundering trials faced by Panamanian justice. Araúz explained that the strength of the sentence will depend on whether the relevant evidence has been subjected to the principle of contradiction, that is, to scrutiny and debate between the parties within the trial. “The strength of the final decision will be linked to it being clear that the relevant evidence was debated and subjected to contradictory scrutiny by the parties,” he stated. The lawyer recalled that contradiction is one of the pillars of the criminal process, as it allows the evidence presented by the prosecution or the defense to be analyzed, questioned, and refined during the hearing. “Contradiction allows the evidence to be subjected to debate and refinement between the parties,” he explained. For Araúz, if it is not demonstrated that the key evidence was discussed under that principle, the ruling could face challenges, regardless of the outcome dictated. The lawyer also noted that the Odebrecht case has once again put in evidence the limitations of the mixed inquisitorial system, under which the process is handled. In his opinion, this model—which the State itself decided to replace with the accusatory penal system—presents difficulties in handling large-scale cases, with multiple defendants, abundant documentation, international cooperation, and complex financial analysis. “The Odebrecht case again shows that the mixed inquisitorial system had real difficulties in managing massive files,” he indicated. The ruling that Judge Baloisa Marquínez issues in the Odebrecht case trial will have its true strength not in the size of the file, but in the quality of the probatory debate that took place during the process.
