Public Ministry’s methodology in the SeNaSa 2.0 case questioned
The legal defense of the accused Juan Henry Poueriet, led by lawyer Adalquiris Lespín Abreu, has raised its voice to question the methodology used by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the development of the investigations into the SeNaSa 2.0 case. The jurist expressed serious doubts about the transparency and rigor of the investigative process being carried out by the prosecuting body.
Debate on the validity of testimonies
According to Lespín Abreu’s statements, the Public Prosecutor’s Office is basing a large part of its new lines of investigation on the testimonies of other defendants, without first carrying out the necessary independent checks to verify the veracity of such information. For the defense, this practice calls into question the integrity of the judicial file.
The country is in a state of total distrust regarding the credibility of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in these cases, because there is no investigation taking place. They take two defendants, have them say whatever they want, whether it is true or not, and that is what they are using to build their investigations.
Adalquiris Lespín Abreu, legal representative for Juan Henry Poueriet.
These criticisms arise at critical moments in the process, as hearings are held to determine the corresponding coercive measures. The lawyer insisted that the authorities must raise their standards for evidence collection to ensure a fair process that adheres to the truth, beyond the statements of those involved in the case.
For its part, the Public Prosecutor’s Office maintains its position and continues to present the evidentiary elements that, in its view, support the charges within this administrative corruption network. Meanwhile, Poueriet’s defense team remains firm in its strategy of refuting the arguments presented by the prosecution during the court hearings.
