La Fiscalía General de la República (FGR) refused to officially make transparent any data research related to possible corruption of officials of the Sexennium last to have links with the Brazilian construction company Odebrecht. This despite the fact that there is a resolution of the INAI thus orders it, and to the own President Andrés Manuel López Obrador promised transparency in the case.
To refuse to give information, the Attorney General gave Animal politician a document of 21 pages in which exposes arguments identical to those the year past gave the then PGR of the Government of Enrique Peña Nieto, and ranging from the risk of affecting the “good name” of those involved, until it is proven that there was corruption, and there is a request for amparo lodged. In fact, is virtually the same document.
not only that. the FGR has continued the legal offensive inherited the PGR to not report. On 15 January a federal judge obtained a temporary suspension for not complying with the order of the INAI, and the past January 23 litigated and got the definitive suspension. in two weeks is defined if they granted finally under cover so the case is five years in secret and classified.
On December 6 the President André Manuel López Obrador had pointed out that even if it had to be respectful of the law, this case should be transparent within the margins of the due process.
“We are not cover anyone (…) There are instructions in which corresponds to all reports are given and are in favour of transparency (…) the only thing you need to take care is don’t give reason to serve if the Attorney-General of information, that those involved as proof of n or they are following due process,”he said.
“Even on Wednesday the own attorney general Alejandro Gertz Manero said in a plenary meeting with legislators of Morena – after exposing alleged research disorder such as Odebrecht – that cases like this”secrecy”should not become in” cover-up”.
In interview the Commissioner of the INAI, Joel Salas, lamented that even though the new federal administration and other cabinet officials have highlighted the importance of transparency in cases such as Odebrecht, the subject remains at opacity. He warned that they will spare no legal resources and, if necessary, will seek to take the theme of the amparo that seeks the FGR to higher courts.
The investigation into alleged corruption that past government officials – mainly incurred Pemex – in the awarding of contracts to Odebrecht was virtually completed, according to what reported since the end of 2017 the then Prosecutor Raul Cervantes.
However this folder not has been presented before a judge, and not the PGR, now the Attorney General, have unveiled some balance of the case or what progress. Before this, and the negative report, INAI has ordered on several occasions that they give to know details of a case that is in the public interest, but has not been.
Read > PGR should give the list of people who have been investigated by the Odebrecht case: INAI in the present presidential term and already with Gertz Manero in front of the Attorney General’s Office, Animal politician has promoted two requests for information and a resource of re vision to try to get different data of the Odebrecht case research, but in all cases the response of the autonomous body (as legally is now the FGR) has been negative.
an opaque case
2 October 2018 the plenum of the National Institute of information access ruled that the then PGR was obliged to ensure transparent action taken in the investigation for possible bribery offences and illicit enrichment, against public and private servers by the so-called case Odebrecht. Subsequently he sent measures of constraint dependency so it reiterated the information advertising, but did not.
November 26 this medium he published that the PGR had taken the final determination not to know the information despite the resolution of INAI. In an office of 20 pages delivered in response to a request for information, dependency expressed multiple reasons why, from their point of view, the data should be reserved for a period of five years.
In this context on 6 December the President López Obrador said at a press conference that the opacity if Odebrecht would end. He said that while it was important to abide by the law to not affect the processes, it was also important that citizens know the progress of these and other research.
A few days later, on December 12, the plenum of the INAI unveiled publicly a new resolution as a result of an appeal promoted by Animal politician which ordered the PGR (already in transition to General Prosecutor’s Office) to be Apr walk public versions of various elements of the case as, for example, statements of suspects.
And the past January 28 the holder of the INAI, Francisco Javier Acuña, Commissioner made a request to the General Prosecutor’s office and its owner, Alejandro Gertz Manero, to show “will” of opening and revealed the Odebrecht than in the last Sexennium case information is He refused to make transparent.
“Copy-paste”
negative hereby promoted two requests for information addressed to the FGR already in the current presidential term. The 0001700342018 requesting to know the amount of people who have been around this research as well as the identity of the same; and folio 0001700347518 in which it requested a copy of the ministerial declarations in public version and a copy of the research in public version folder.
At the same time it had promoted judicial review 6994/18 after the refusal of the then PGR report case. As already stated, on December 12 INAI ordered prosecutors modify that refusal and to publicize details of the case.
In their response to all of the above documents (the latter dated January 29) the FGR exposes multiple reasons of the why from his point of view, and despite the resolutions of the INAI, could not be released any data on this research folder.
As already stated, this response is virtually the same as the PGR had exhibited previously. contains, even identical paragraphs and builds the same reasoning.
so, for example, are repeated arguments as “the dissemination of the information requested cannot abide to the curiosity of the citizen or the interest of a citizen,” or that order the publicity of the case “is an approach that attentive to the detriment of the” true public interest of society on the elucidation of the facts”.
Also repeating reasons that reveal identifying information to investigated persons “affect your privacy, prestige and good name”, that it would violate the principle of presumption of innocence, or that “even enough elements do not arise to determine” If the crimes in this case “are made of corruption”. That among other arguments already described since November in this note.
legal offensive vs INAI
another of the arguments exposed and repeated by the PGR-FGR to not open the Odebrecht case is the existence of a request for amparo promoted against the decision of the INAI.
Animal politician revised through the Judicial Council this case, and confirmed that it is a protection promoted by the own attorney, and now the prosecution has given to that continuity.
The demand arose since October of last year before the third district court in administrative matters by an agent of the public prosecutor’s Office, ascribed to the Agency tenth fourth researcher coordination General of research, the Attorney Specializing in investigation of federal crimes of PGR.
Originally the judge in the case dismissed the demand to consider that the determination of the INAI provide case information was directed to the transparency unit of the PGR, and not to the agent who promoted it, but through a resource of complaint the unit got the case was reactivated.
On January 15 the judge granted the provisional suspension to not abide by the determination of INAI and inform case. That was the suspension which referred the prosecution provided responses.
But also on January 23 the FGR got that the judge granted the suspension permanently for not reporting. It will be in two weeks when defining if they granted the definitive amparo.
Interviewed on this subject, the Commissioner Joel Salas said will not skimp in terms of legal appeals that the Institute has at its disposal, and said they will seek the eventual amparo to be reviewed by the judges of a Superior room.
Salas stressed that articles 94, 95 and 71 and 82 of the Federal transparency law protect the determination of INAI that the case should be more transparent. He noted that the plenum of the Institute has determined that because it is a case of high impact must prevail in the public interest and society must know basic information of the case.
In addition rooms explained that this is a case involving acts of corruption, which is reason enough to not apply the reservation of confidentiality in the corresponding research folder.
Thanks for reading! Help us to continue with our work. How? You can now subscribe to political Animal on Facebook. With your monthly donation, you will receive special content. Learn coMO subscribe here. Check our list of frequently asked questions here.
