Following the acquittal of the last two defendants in the Odebrecht corruption case, former Minister of Public Works Víctor Díaz Rúa and Odebrecht commercial representative Ángel Rondón, Participación Ciudadana has declared that the Dominican Republic has won the “gold medal” in impunity. The prosecution process had originally incriminated 14 persons.
The group criticized the recent decision by the Supreme Court’s Second Criminal Chamber that absolved the only two remaining defendants in one of the country’s largest corruption scandals. The ruling, they argue, represents a significant failure of the justice system in combating impunity and has tarnished the nation’s reputation both domestically and internationally.
“Despite some recent improvements in the country’s fight against corruption, the justice system has once again faltered. The Supreme Court’s acquittal of Díaz Rúa and Rondón in a case that was recognized internationally for its scale of corruption is a grave disappointment,” the organization stated.
Participación Ciudadana placed significant blame on the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which, according to the group, was warned in 2017 by then-Prosecutor General Miriam Germán Brito about insufficient evidence in the case. However, they claimed that the office made no effort to address this issue and refused to travel to Brazil to question Odebrecht executives, despite having judicial permission to do so.
The group also highlighted that the names of those who received bribes were concealed under code names, but were likely to implicate high-ranking officials, including legislators and close associates of the then-Prosecutor General.
They stressed the importance of acknowledging the bribes that occurred, as confirmed by Odebrecht in its agreement with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which included a commitment to return double the admitted US$92 million in bribes and to identify the bribed officials. This commitment, Participación Ciudadana noted, was never enforced by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The organization expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s use of the term “nonexistence” of bribery in its ruling. They argued that, despite the confession of bribery, the court’s language suggests that no bribery occurred, which they believe undermines public trust given the severity of the case.
With the final ruling now in place, Participación Ciudadana urged the Public Prosecutor’s Office to conduct an internal review and provide explanations to the public. They emphasized that failure to prosecute criminals compromises the credibility of the justice system as a whole.
Rather than deterring anti-corruption efforts, the group called for intensified actions against other high-profile corruption cases currently in the courts, such as Anti-Pulpo, Coral, Coral 5G, Medusa, and Calamar, which, unlike the Odebrecht case, have substantial evidence.
One positive aspect of the Odebrecht case, they noted, was the court’s rejection of a motion to dismiss the case due to the statute of limitations. This ruling underscores the importance of allowing sufficient time for thorough investigations, particularly in cases involving high-level corruption, and reinforces the notion that the statute of limitations should not be used as a shield to protect the guilty. This decision aligns with previous rulings by the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court, ensuring that ongoing corruption cases are not jeopardized by time limits, thereby maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings. By preventing premature dismissal of cases, the ruling ensures that justice can be served and that the accused can still be held accountable for their actions.
Attorney General Miriam German Brito had warned then Attorney General Jean Alain Rodríguez of the many flaws in the case he was carrying regarding the Odebrecht bribes. Nevertheless, when she was named Attorney General, German Brito did not follow her own advice.
Read more:
Participación Ciudadana
Noticias SIN
DR1 News
14 August 2024