They refuse to submit incomplete documents to the former officer. In addition, they condemn the attempt to get Ana Wilma de Escobar to read the unsigned receipt.
Many of the lawyers who consulted El Diario de Hoi agree that the former officers were summoned Special Commission of the Legislature to inquire into bonuses They are treated like a public hearing, which is limited to a judge.
“Now the commission’s representatives are investigating. They do not have the power of a lawyer, nor do they have the power of a criminal judge. The assembly commission is only investigating what happened, but it does not have the power of a judge.
Former government officials, including former President Elias Antonio Saka and former President Alfredo Christiani, have already been invited to appear before a special commission of the legislature.
Last Thursday, former Vice President and former representative of ARENA Ana Wilma de Escobar and former Vice President Carlos Quintanilla Schmidt during the administration of Francisco Flores.
In the case of Escobar’s former vice president, the delegates sought to blame him.
She pretends to have read the receipt for the alleged $ 10,000 bonus, but without her signature, she refuses to do so.
“The unsigned receipt was given to you. It is frustrating to think that someone will recognize a printed document at any time and perhaps the money they did not receive was given. What can give credibility to a document without a signature is that it distorts me to be handled in that way,” Galias said.
Arnav Paulinas, legal coordinator at the Central American University’s Institute for Human Rights, said there was a difference in treatment between “Jose Siemen Canas” (UCA), Saga and his former private secretary, Elmer Charleux (both convicted of corruption). Retrieved from other persons quoted.
Delegates said the allegations against Escobar were based on the comments of Sakka and Charlix, who were friendly and received other former officers without accusatory tone.
“Some of the delegates who make up the commission seem to regret when they do not like the answer they are given or the answer they are waiting for. The search for the truth – as they say – should not be achieved through improper means,” Paulinas said.
Incomplete Report In an attempt to justify the allegation that Ana Wilma de Escobar received a bonus, Deputy William Soriano from Nuevas Ideas brought in a portion of the report, which the Supreme Court’s probation section on the former officer’s assets accused it of being incomplete.
It does not contain the final decision of the full court in which it is exempted from possible illegal enrichment.
Presenting an incomplete document “indicates misconceptions and attempts to confuse people with incomplete information,” Paulinas said.
The final resolution dated March 26, 2019 was published on the Supreme Court’s website, where it was decided “No signs of illicit enrichment.”
From the statement, attorney Ruth Eleonora Lopez pointed out that the Special Commission should state what kind of request was made and if it was to some extent, it would create “political motivation”.
The New Ideas magazine section El Diario de Hoi provided with a note on the details sent to the Assembly on July 28, 2021 by Unit President Carlos Rafael Pineda. .
