The effective collaboration agreement that the Prosecutor’s Office maintains with the Odebrecht company for the Lava Jato case, would be about to break for the criminal lawyer Andy Carrion. This is due to the attitude of Jorge Barata and other executives of the Brazilian company for not testifying or appearing at the trials.
“It was imminent that at some point the effective collaboration that was signed at the time by some executives of the Brazilian company, as well as by the company Odebrecht itself, would have to be broken. This was due to multiple indications that had already been presented throughout, not only the collaboration itself, but also already begun the trials. Let us remember that this begins with the absence of Jorge Barata, summoned as a witness in the trial against Ollanta Humala.”says the criminal lawyer.
“Subsequently, there are decisions that were addressed in the Brazilian judiciary that have made it impossible to reach an agreement of collaboration and, above all, cooperation to facilitate the transfer of evidence, as well as the statements of the Brazilians. This, which began as a kind of rebellion by Jorge Barata, has already spread to the other officials of the Brazilian company.”he adds.
Added to all this are Jorge Barata’s changing positions regarding certain important cases such as that of the Southern Peruvian Gas Pipeline, which would implicate former President Humala and his wife Nadine Heredia.
LOOK: An effective collaboration agreement with Barata has collapsed. What will this mean?
“We see in the Gasoducto case, for example, Barata acknowledged some responsibility, then did not acknowledge it. The Brazilian company itself, at the time, acknowledged some facts and now its degree of participation in the Southern Peruvian Gas Pipeline will be compromised. And we also have other cases in which, simply, the Brazilians have not come to testify.”Carrión said.
The criminal lawyer believes that the prosecution should take action in the matter in order to validate the agreements. “It is imminent that this agreement will be broken and that the prosecution will have to take action on the matter, even if it is late, but it must do so in order to safeguard, at least, the fact that the agreement itself is validated, but the benefits that have been granted to them on many occasions are revoked.”
Peru21 ePaper, enter here and try it for free.
RECOMMENDED VIDEO
