Rondón’s defense argues that Odebrecht’s award-winning charges should not be acknowledged

The technical defense of the accused Ángel Rondón argued in the national district’s first collegiate court that the award-winning statements of Odebrecht executives sent from Brazil should not be admitted to the trial.

Lawyers José Miguel Minier, head of defense of the bar, Emely Rodríguez and Fernan Ramos Peralta, argued to the judges hearing the merits that the accusations awarded are not valid evidence to prove the accusation against those who appear in the Odebrecht case have been charged.

Rodríguez argued in court that Supreme Court Special Instruction Judge Francisco Ortega Polanco ordered the prosecutor to go to Brazil and question the workers of the Odebrecht construction company, which the prosecution failed to do.

“If the prosecution had wanted to get those Odebrecht employees to question them, they had to comply with the decision of a judge who did not respect it and we at least hope that they will say what the reason is here,” said the lawyer. .

He stated that the will of the prosecution service had not been given to go to Brazil and that the only option offered by the law in Section 371 is if that report is filed in accordance with the procedural rules, as the parties have that option and there it harmonized the legality of the process.

Rodríguez argued that the charges were not translated in accordance with the mandate of the law and that they contain only the seal and an initial of the alleged judicial interpreter, that is, it does not contain the number of the deed, the book and the folio of the translation.

In addition, he pointed out that he does not have a statement that the document is in accordance with the original, the identity and signature of the interpreter, the date of the translation and that “to add insult to injury”, who supposedly did the same by the name on the seal, “is not authorized to make translations from Portuguese to Spanish.”

“The denunciations are agreements made in a totally different judicial system from that of the Dominican Republic, but furthermore that the informants were not questioned by the Dominican authorities and that their statements are neither signed, apostille or certified as required by the Dominican Republic. law. Emely Rodríguez emphasized.

Source