translated from Spanish: INAI will sanction prosecutor if no Odebrecht case is cleared

The National Institute for Access to Public Information (INAI) warned the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (FGR) that if it does not information officials involved in possible acts of corruption in the “Odebrecht case”, within a period of time five business days, will begin with the enforcement of fines and penalties responsible officials.
This after the Institute’s Directorate-General concluded that the amparo trials that the FGR argues as “impediment”, in order not to grant the information, are overstepped by the new criterion taken by the plenary that it believes that, by law, the case should declassifying theway as corruption facts.
The difference between the two organisms originates from a request for information submitted by Political Animal last December, in which the Attorney General’s Office was requested to deliver public versions of the statements of Pemex officials involved in this case, as well as individuals.
The Prosecutor’s Office responded by denying the information, with the same arguments with which the PGR did so in the past six years. Among them was that the case could not yet be classified as a corruption fact, as envisaged by a reform passed in 2015, because for this to take effect it was necessary to appoint an anti-corruption prosecutor’s office.
Read: Bribery Builder: The Story of Odebrecht, the Brazilian Giant with Tentacles in 26 Countries
However, last February the Senate carried out the appointment of the anti-corruption prosecutor, person Mary of Light Mijangos.
In that context, INAI ruled in the context of review appeals 1128/19 (derived from the application initiated by that means) and appeal 1035/19, that there was sufficient public and official data to infer that the Odebrecht case is a matter of alleged large-scale corruption, so the declassification clause could already be effective section 112 of the Federal Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information.
I can’t, fGR says; you can and should: INAI
In response to that determination, the FGR again refused to provide the information. But this time with a single and central argument that there are two protection claims promoted in previous months, under the files 1386/2018 and 148/2019, in the third and ninth courts of District in Administrative Matters of Mexico City.
The details of the response that the FGR sent to Political Animal can be consulted in this note, but basically what the Prosecutor’s Office headed by Alejandro Gertz Manero argues is that, while the demands promoted have not been resolved in substance, have definitive suspensions in both cases.
And derived from the above, the FGR alludes to a “Legal impossibility” to deliver any information about the investigation.
You may be interested: INAI has ordered PGR six times to transparent information from the Odebrecht case
In response to this new determination, the InAI Compliance Directorate issued an office signed by Fernando García Limón, Director General of Compliance and Responsibilities of the institute, addressed to the Attorney General’s Office and with a copy to Political Animal, as an information applicant.
In that trade INAI qualifies as “unfulfilled” the instruction addressed to the FGR, in order to declassify the data from the Odebrecht case in the case of corruption, since it concludes that the final suspensions referred to by the Public Prosecutor’s Office do not hinder the delivery of the information.
To support the above, reference is made to the analysis previously carried out by INAI’s Directorate of Legal Affairs, which concluded that the suspensions identified only affect requests for information and resources of nonconformity issued from it, but not to new cases such as 1128/19.
“The suspension given in the trial of amparo 1386/2018, does NOT prevent this Institute from resolving the appeal for review 1128/2019… the scope of the suspension is entirely limited to the decision being challenged without limiting it to new decisions even if the subject matter of the application and the review appeal are the same,” the office states.
Read also: Pemex official linked to Odebrecht case is in charge of the Dos Bocas refinery project
In addition, the trade reiterates that there is no classification of any data, because as already resolved in the new INAI criterion, in the case it applies the declassification because they are facts of corruption, and not only by a matter of general interest as determined last year.
“Taking into account the above it is estimated that the obligated subject (the FGR) didn’t abide by the resolution we’re dealing with it, whenever did not deliver the names of officials and former public officials who have been called to testify about the Odebrecht case, as well as the name of the people facing accusations about this case, which are in the records that make up the research folder number FED/SEIDF/CGI-CDMX/0000117/2017″, notes García Limón.
Transparency or sanctions
After considering that the resolution issued was not complied with, the INAI Compliance Directorate instructed the Director-General of Special Affairs of the FGR’s Federal Crimes Investigation, Carlos Hernandez Azuara, so that comply with providing the information within five business days from the notification. That deadline would expire next Thursday, June 20.
In case of non-compliance, INAI warned the Public Prosecutor’s Office that it would begin with the implementation of the measures of pressure (sanctions), which provides for article 174 of the Federal Transparency Act, and that ranging from public warnings to fines that could reach the 126 thousand pesos.
This is accompanied by the request for the opening of administrative and even criminal proceedings, against the public servants involved in the case.
More on the subject: Prosecutor’s office can’t classify Odebrecht case because it involves corrupt officials: INAI
This is the first time that INAI has warned of sanctions on the current FGR for the Odebrecht case, however, this had already happened last year when the then PGR also refused to comply.
And the position taken by the then PGR was to bring the first application for protection as well as proceedings of origin to curb both compliance with the decision, as well as the fines applied to the public prosecutor’s office responsible for the prior investigation.
It should be noted that none of the amparo trials brought by the PGR-FGR against INAI’s determinations in the Odebrecht case have been decided in the background, and the hearings have been deferred on multiple occasions.
In addition to the FGR, the former Pemex director Emilio Lozoya (one of those involved in the Odebrecht case and currently has an apprehension order against him) also promoted a claim for protection against the case being transparent.
Thanks for reading! Help us get on with our work. How? You can now subscribe to Political Animal on Facebook. With your monthly donation you will receive special content. Find out how to subscribe here. Check out our list of frequently asked questions here.

Original source in Spanish