The Panel on Independent Special Prosecutors (PFEI) decided to entrust its special prosecutors with the actions of those responsible in the process of purchasing evidence of COVID-19, so it did not accept the recommendation of the Department of Justice not to investigate the subject.
For its determination, the Panel assessed the affidavits in the tax summary submitted by Justice. It follows that several officials and individuals, without legal authority, unduly intervened with clearly regulated procurement and acquisition processes. This included the undue pressure on the then Acting Secretary of Health to sign a million-dollar purchase order in 20 minutes without following the analysis and rigor required by the regulations.
Although the initial reference included Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced and other officials, the PFEI -according to the record before its consideration-, focused the commissioned investigation on Lilliam Sanchez, Undersecretary of the Interior; Mabel Cap, Fortress official attached to the COVID Medical Task Force, General José Burgos, former commissioner of the Emergency Management Negotiation; and the lawyer Juan Maldonado, as a possible co-author.
However, the Panel was specific that this does not entail an exemption from liability for several officials mentioned in the issued resolution. According to its enabling law, there will be no impediment for the EIFs to determine to expand their investigation into these, to obtain the quantum of evidence by which they can file a case in court against the other persons mentioned by Justice in the your report.
The Panel entrusted the in-depth investigation to the Lic. Ramón Mendoza Rosario, Independent Special Prosecutor, who will be assisted by other delegated prosecutors according to the workload of the orders already referred.
Against Lilliam Sanchez, Mabel Cap and General Burgos, the investigator, is preached on possible violations of the Penal Code in its Art. 261 (Undue Influence); Art. 254 (Improper intervention in government operations); Art. 262 (Breach of duty); Art. 263 (Loss of public funds through action or omission and negligence); Art. 264 (Embezzlement of public funds); Art. 269 (perjures). Infringements are also attributed to Art. 3.2 of the Anti-Corruption Code (Obligations and Ethical Responsibilities).
As for civil servants, the alleged violations of Article 4.2 of the Government Ethics Act regarding the Maldonado licensee must also be considered, the investigation will focus on possible violations of Articles 212, 254, 261 and 269 on ideological falsehood, improper intervention in government operations, undue influence and perjury, respectively.
Likewise, in possible violations of the Anti-Corruption Code. “We are certainly facing a complex case of high public interest where we have a duty to ensure that no conduct goes unpunished, where human pain during a pandemic could be buried in the face of a disproportionate and insensitive spirit. profit and the interest of some to control the processes to advance agendas and unsuspected benefits “, ratifies the Panel in its Resolution. In the letter, the constitutional mandate to ensure that the use of people’s money is linked to the general well-being of all citizens was strongly emphasized. Added to this is public policy against corruption and the laws that fight it.
“The mandates indicated above are not suspended in the face of a state of emergency. More rigor and discipline are imposed,” says the resolution, which sets out the balance between the responsibility to attend to the emergency and the constitutional obligation. and legal to ensure the control and correct use of public funds.
It is therefore the duty of the EIFs to assess and determine whether any of the other officials mentioned in the reports should be held accountable for what happened in this case, in accordance with the evidence they obtain in the course of their investigation.