The Brazilian government sent a statement at the end of last month definitively suspending cooperation with the Andean country in processes involving Odebrecht and determining the invalidation of evidence contained in the contractor’s statement.
The reason was the use by the Peruvian Public Prosecutor’s Office of the content of the complaint, which was annulled by the Federal Supreme Court after messages were leaked between the then judge.
The message was sent on September 17 to the Peruvian Justice Department by the National Secretary of Justice, Jean Uema, under whose jurisdiction is the DRCI (Department of Asset Recovery and International Legal Cooperation).
“I maintain the suspension, this time for an indefinite period, of all requests for international legal cooperation in criminal matters coming from Peru and its collaborators, as the commitments assumed within the scope of international legal cooperation between Brazil and Peru, the terms of commitment on specialty and limitation of the use of evidence and the decision of the Federal Supreme Court are not being met”, states Uema in his message.
Other temporary suspensions had been enacted by Brazil in the past, but ended up being reversed later, after Peru’s commitment to limit the use of evidence. The neighboring country, however, rescinded the irregularity, in the Brazilian view.
Odebrecht’s accusation was based on several processes in Peru involving politicians. Among the most rumored are accusations that led to the conviction of former president Ollanta Humala (2011-16), who is imprisoned in the country. They were accused of receiving slush funds from the company, which they deny.
The Peruvian Public Prosecutor’s Office, however, was seeking accusations of corruption based on the denunciation of Jorge Barata, a former Odebrecht executive in Peru.
The expectation is that, with the invalidation of the evidence, the processes will be extinguished and the convictions can be annulled.
Peru is obliged to follow Brazil’s request and respect the decisions of the STF, due to a bilateral legal agreement. Failure to comply with the request could lead to a diplomatic crisis and prosecution of the accused in international courts. The Andean country’s Judiciary has not yet ruled on the request, however.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
