The Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) would have acted after the due term in the case file carried out against the former President of the Republic, Ricardo Martinelli.
It was thus stated by the former Panamanian President’s defense, who presented last Sunday an urgent request to the judge of the Court, Harry Díaz, to make clear how, while acting as the Prosecutor in the case against the former President, he included the testimony of Sergeant Ismael Pittí.
on 8 October 2015, Sidney Sitton, lawyer of Ricardo Martinelli requested information from judge Diaz regarding the exact date on which investigations in the case of telephone interceptions were concluded.
The above took pace a result of the testimony that Pitti would have been included after the extradition request on January 23, 2017, by the Embassy of Panama in Washingtonunbeknownst to the defense.
Martinelli’s legal representation argues that witness Pitti, alias "Brad", would be the protected witness rewarded by the varelismo to start the process of telephone tapping against the former President.
As a result, lawyer Sittón emphasized that has to be determined whether or not article 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was complied with in the case of Pitti, which obliges the Prosecutor to announce the existence of any type of evidence.
The Criminal Code establishes that at the time of the indictment "only the facts and the personas included in the arraignment may be referred to".
This line states that "the evidentiary material will be offered with an indication of the facts or circumstances that are intended to be proven (...)".
However, in the note, Sitton asks whether there was knowledge on the part of the judge in the preparation and presentation of an affidavit of Ismael Pittí, included in diplomatic note 17-004 of January 23, 2017, of the Embassy of Panama in Washington to the United States Department of State.
At the same time, if this inclusion was in force at closure of the investigation dated 8 October 2015.
Martinelli’s defense’s information was requested within a period of 24 hours, which concluded on Monday, since it was an urgent request.
However, judge Diaz’s response was never heard.
Inaccuracies in the U.S.
On the other hand, the defense of the former President in Miami, Florida, yesterday explained that there have been a series of "inaccuracies" in which the prosecution would have incurred.
Through a request to correct the file in the United States, an 18-page document was presented, addressed to judge Edwin Torres, who is in charge of resolving a request for change of precautionary measure measures in favor of Martinelli.
Attorney Marcos Daniel Jiménez reiterated in the media that the former president is awaiting an application for asylum to be processed submitted in the United States in 2015.
He also added that Martinelli "has no intention of leaving the United States".
The Prosecutor's Office had contributed to record information related to the transfer of Martinelli and the existence of a plane, owned by the former President, which was mentioned by the Attorney General of the USA, who represents the Panamanian State in the trial and want to prevent judge Torres from granting him parole.
However, this is a fact that would have never occurred according to the defense, and the prosecution has tried to introduce, in addition to a property title whose name comes from a trust from a bank in Utah, which was tried to be interpreted as though it “was trying to hide the ownership of the aircraft".
This information could not be true, after this become known that superimposing the aircraft owned by an individual or corporation in the name of a trust is a common practice in American aviation, in order to have a record number in the US, which is required for moving in the territory.
The defense said that the fact that the Prosecutor's Office says that Martinelli may run or be the owner of an entity called Global Bank needs to be corrected.
