Cesar Nakazaki: The employee gets the duty to be a witness after the court agreement, and not when they want “Children”

Caesar Nakazawaki, Attorney karelim lopez D Bruno Pachecostated that a recent criminal lawsuit filed against his clients by congressmen from People’s Action syndicated as “Los Niños” will be “quickly dismissed” as the defendants have no legal obligation to testify as witnesses until the effective cooperation agreement they seek, approved Power of attorney.

“The big mistake is to pretend that the employee says when he wants to be involved, and the involved are not the ones who determine […] When does an accomplice acquire the obligation to be a witness? when their agreement is concluded and approved by the courts,” he told the RPP program Noticias Todo se saber.

Yesterday, Wednesday, legislators Ilyich Lopez, Raul Dorotheo, Jorge Flores Ancachi D Darwin Espinoza (People’s Action) opened a criminal case against karelim lopez, Bruno Pacheco D Zamir Villaverdefor committing crimes of disobedience to authorities, refusal to cooperate with justice and slanderous denunciation.

The congressmen reported that they requested that the defendants be called to testify so that their lawyers could cross-examine them, considering it “the prerogative of the criminal process” since “only one side’s version is accepted”; however every time karelim lopez quoted “does not go to Public service”.

O, Nakazaki pointed out that in the effective cooperation procedure, “the first duty is to provide information to the prosecutor”, in order to then proceed to the stage of confirming his statements and, accordingly, move towards an agreement with the justice system.

“If I say that a person has violated his duty to testify, the minimum for a legislator is to understand a little when a collaborator acquires the duty to be a witness, and not when he wants a “child”; this becomes possible when the current cooperation agreement is approved,” he said.

Attempt to discredit Karelim Lopez

The lawyer confirmed that the revealing congressmen intend to “discredit the one who was an obvious witness” because he had to go out to explain to the prosecutor’s office his statements, which were leaked to the press.

Nakazaki ensured that everything stated karelim lopez regarding Los Niños has already been confirmed, and that the innocence or guilt of congressmen involved in alleged acts of corruption in which the president is also involved Peter’s castle and his entourage is determined not by what his client said, but rather by the testimony of public works granted illegally or “as a result of illegal appointments” of officials.

“The witness does not have to prove, the only thing that says this is what I know. The one who evaluates is the prosecutor or the judge. There are journalistic investigations that give evidence of businessmen who met with these gentlemen (Los Niños) .

López’s lawyer dismissed as misleading an argument aimed at delegitimizing the statements of his client, who allegedly did not provide graphic or documentary evidence.

“Queens of evidence in criminal justice – a clue […] big crimes are proven by evidence. Example: your niece (an allusion to Yenifer Paredes, niece of Pedro Castillo) appeared in a vest from a private person, this is an indication; Behind her was Espinito (meaning Hugo Espino), a businessman, another clue; State of emergency flew another indication […] All those who have won are related, they are compatriots, they are relatives or a small fraction of Peru Libre … ask yourself for signs, not direct evidence, ”he commented.

About the absence karelim lopez appointments to the prosecutor’s office, insisted that he has no “legal obligation to be present” and because he can respond to the strategy of an effective process of cooperation with the prosecutor’s office in charge of the case, because in order to “cooperate with justice, you let the prosecutor check everything” .

“He was never guilty of the charge, because all (absences) are justified,” he said.

Complaint against Bruno Pacheco

Naqazavi also referred to a complaint by General(r)EP Wilson Barrantes who stated that Bruno Pachecoas General Secretary of the Office of the President, asked him for 200,000 soles to finalize his appointment as head of the National Intelligence Agency.

“I can say that the fact is wrong […] The topic of intelligence is dealt with within the scope of the collaboration (in which Pacheco is involved), so it would be absurd if I were to deal with the whole subject of the collaboration, where I accept responsibility, I don’t touch on that subject. There is no theme. Why the general is saying this now, it will become clear,” he said.