FGR denies the file data for a federal judge

In order to maintain the strict secrecy of the investigation, according to the authority, indeed The secrecy should have been lifted As it was in the public interest, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office (FGR) refused the federal judge to hand over data from the Odebrecht investigation file and even filed a complaint against the said judge because he had requested it.

The prosecution’s complaint, which the judges who reviewed it rejected as inadmissible, suspended the judicial protection lawsuit promoted by a civil organization so that they could be recognized as victims in the case, and both were allowed access to the search file, as well as the video of the sessions.

It might interest you: They fire a Pemex employee implicated in Master Fraud for omissions in his inheritance and disqualify him

Court documents that Political animal On August 11, the First Criminal Protection District Court acknowledged the preparation of the trial of Ambaru 375/2020 promoted by Tujeel: A Strategy Against Impunity.

Tujeel filed an appeal against the FGR’s decision to refuse to acknowledge his victim status in the FED / SEIDF / CGI-CDMX / 0000117/2017 investigation file corresponding to the Odebrecht case, which said that the NGOs requested under the corruption thesis that the crimes of society are the aggrieved party, and civil society organizations are his representative.

In addition to this acknowledgment, the aforementioned organization requested FGR access to data from the investigation file and to audio and video recordings of the hearings, as well as compatible with the victims of the case. All this was denied by the attorney general’s office

After reviewing the proposal, Federal Judge Sandra Letizia Robledo Magana considered that there was support for the opening of the judicial protection case and, where appropriate, requested the FGR for a report justifying the decision it made and the evidence of the case.

However, in his response, FGR Prosecutor, Christian Javier Jimenez Hernandez, reiterated his decision not to grant TOJIL recognition of the victim or access to any data from the Odebrecht case, but did not attach the data to the file. In response, the judge warned him against imposing a fine if he did not submit the case data.

In this context, the aforementioned public prosecutor on September 18 filed a complaint with a higher court against Judge Robledo Magagna, who accused him of acting “arbitrarily” by requesting information from the investigation file in an allegedly unjustified manner. He will be fined if he does not.

FGR loses again … but doesn’t comply

The complaint submitted by the Office of the Prosecutor was referred to the Third Class Court in Criminal Matters of the First Circuit, which the three justices of the peace unanimously decided to dismiss as inadmissible. What was presented under the assumption that the judge’s request did not harm the prosecution at all, let alone a warning of the fine if he did not comply.

However, despite the decision of the aforementioned court, the prosecution, with its appeal, was able to halt the progress of the Amparo trial promoted by the Togel Foundation, which continued without appeal until now.

The complaint against Judge Robledo Magana is the latest episode of the FGR’s policy of not disclosing details of the investigation into bribes to officials paid by construction company Odebrecht, a case that had already been open for four years without a single ruling.

During this period, the Office of the Prosecutor resorted to many legal remedies available to it in order not to declassify the file, even when He ended up losing them, Which allowed him to prolong operations.

For example, for three years, the PGR and Today FGR have promoted four lawsuits with the goal of non-compliance with at least 13 INAI decisions in which they instructed the FGR to prepare a public copy of the case investigation file and hand over various data.

The judges rejected all of these rights, without exception, and in all of these cases, the USF submitted an appeal to the higher courts for review. The court’s decisions agreed with INAI: The case should be declassified because it is in fact dangerous corruption.

However, without any legal justification, the Public Prosecutor’s Office continues to refuse to disclose data related to the case or to prepare a public copy of it, a situation in which the authority has warned public prosecutors of the possibility of imposing a fine on them or even condemning them. To them with contempt.

Last week the Transparency Institute too Reversed FGR’s decision not to launch the blog The doctor of the former director of Pemex, Emilio Lozoya, was found to be suffering from various diseases and it was justified not to take him to prison after his extradition.

Read more: Pemex suspends Vitol business following allegations of bribery

A year of mystery and impunity

February 12th marks the year since the former Pemex manager, Emilio Lozoya, was arrested in Malaga, Spain, the country in which he was held and imprisoned for nearly five months until he was extradited to Mexico, where he was released on parole.

So far Lozoya is still unclear. Although FGR was able to connect it to the process through Crimes of money laundering and criminal assemblySo far, no formal charges have been brought against him to stand trial. Instead, he negotiated a possible pardon with Lozoya in exchange for his service as a witness to cooperate against other former officials of higher ranks or to commit more serious crimes.

Lozoya’s collaboration has yet to lead to a tangible result. At the time, the FGR tried to go forward against former Treasury Secretary Luis Fedegaray, but the judge rejected the requested arrest warrant. At the end of January, the prosecutor’s office asked the judge to hold a hearing to prosecute former Senator Jorge Laval Morey, who was also denounced by Lozoya, but Last minute canceled the charge.

The timeline prepared by TOJIL for the year that has elapsed after Lozoya was arrested shows not only a lack of results but also of transparency. For example, the preliminary hearing against a former Pemex manager is detailed without public or press access.

The organization notes that there are three protection cases against the judiciary’s decisions not to allow access to the aforementioned sessions, or the Attorney General’s office’s refusal to hand over data.

“It is extremely worrying that none of the information has been accessed in this case. It is very strange that the issue that was in the public eye not only at the national level but also at the international level here was dealt with in the strictest confidence, especially by FGR. Tujeel Associate Advocate: “It is alarming that the judiciary has also followed the same line of keeping everything in the dark.”

The lawyer insisted that publicity and scrutiny of citizens were crucial elements in other countries such as Brazil and Peru for cases to reach a judicial solution. “Because of the sad record that we have in Mexico of corruption and mismanagement, citizen control that can avoid this kind of bad outcome is especially important,” he concluded.