The Independent Prosecutor’s Group (PFEI) decided to entrust its special prosecutors with the actions of those responsible for purchasing the COVID-19 evidence, and therefore did not accept the Department of Justice’s recommendation not to investigate the matter.
For its determination, the commission assessed the affidavits from the tax summary sent by the court. It follows that several officials and natural persons, without legal authority, have intervened improperly with clearly regulated procurement and procurement processes. This included putting undue pressure on the then interim secretary of health to sign a million-dollar purchase order within 20 minutes without following the analysis and rigor required by the regulations.
Although the initial complaint included Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced and other officials, the PFEI – according to the report prior to its examination – focused the commissioned investigation on Lilliam Sanchez, Undersecretary of the Interior; Mabel Cabeza, La Fortaleza official attached to the COVID Medical Task Force, General José Burgos, former Commissioner of the Office of Emergency Management; and Juan Maldonado, as a possible co-author.
However, the Committee stated that this did not imply an exemption from liability for the various officials mentioned in the resolution issued. As established by its enabling law, the EIF will have no impediment for the EIF to determine the extent of the investigation into them if the amount of evidence by which they can bring a case before the courts against the other persons mentioned by the Court in its Report is obtained. .
The group entrusted the in-depth investigation to Lcdo. Ramón Mendoza Rosario, special independent prosecutor, who will be assisted by other delegated prosecutors depending on the workload of the missions already mentioned.
Against Lilliam Sanchez, Mabel Cabeza and General Burgos, the commission of inquiry is based on possible violations of the Criminal Code in Article 261 (unjustified influence); Art. 254 (Improper intervention in government operations); Art. 262 (Violation of the obligation); Art. 263 (Loss of public funds through action or omission and negligence); Art. 264 (Embezzlement of public funds); Article 269 (Prejudice). Violations of art. 3.2 of the Anti-Corruption Code (obligations and ethical responsibilities) are also assigned to them.
With regard to officials, the alleged offenses of Article 4.2 of the Government Ethics Law will also have to be taken into account. As regards Mr Maldonado, the investigation will focus on possible offenses of Articles 212, 254, 261 and 269 on ideological falsity, improper intervention in government operations, improper influence and perjury, respectively.
Likewise, in possible violations of the Anti-Corruption Code. “We are certainly facing a complex case of great public interest in which we have a duty to ensure that no conduct goes unpunished, in which human pain during a pandemic could be buried in the face of excessive and insensitive profit motive and the interest of some to control the processes in order to advance agendas and unsuspected benefits ”, the commission states 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 specified. To this is added public policy against corruption and the laws that fight it.
“The aforementioned mandates are not suspended in a state of emergency. Greater rigor and discipline are required “, the Resolution states, which establishes the balance between the responsibility to participate in the emergency and the constitutional and legal obligation to ensure the control and correct use of public funds.
It is therefore the duty of the EIF to assess and determine whether any of the other officials mentioned in the reports should be held accountable for what happened in this case, according to the evidence obtained during their investigation.