Former attorney general facing 6 months jail did not act with malice say dissenting judges

Panama’s former Attorney General Ana Matilde Gomez, was formally served with a notice of her six-month prison sentence on Friday, September 10 while four  dissenting judges of the Supreme Court said in their  opinion  she did not act with malice when she authorized wiretaps.

They also agreed the taps  did not affect the privacy of  former prosecutor Arquimedes Saez, under investigation for corruption. 

In their opinions, Harley Mitchell, former president of the Supreme Jerónimo Mejía, Victor Benavides and Oyden Ortega point out that the decision to convict Gomez was a "mistake" because she was pursuing a crime of corruption and that, at that time it appeared that she had the authority to order the taps.

On August 17, 2005, Gomez signed a resolution authorizing wiretapping in an operation against Saez, former prosecutor for La Chorrera.

The phone of Miguel Sambrano was tapped. He had accused Saez of demanding $2,000 in exchange for an injunction in favor of his stepdaughter.

Two years later in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the order issued by Gomez was unconstitutional, since she had no "judicial authority" to order the interception, as required by Article 29 of the Constitution amended in 2004.

"There is no intention or arbitrariness in the conduct of the honorable attorney, because this process has to do with the interpretation of Article 29 of the Constitution," Mejia said in his response.

He recalled that in this respect, the Criminal Chamber has repeatedly stated that the "misinterpretation" of a rule "does not create criminal liability."

Benavides said the case against Gomez was “beyond what is legal" and the pretrial proceedings were "unusual."

He also found that the "additional penalty" of four years ‘disqualification from holding public office "is beyond the proportionality" as the "principal penalty is six months’ imprisonment, commuted to $ 4,000.”

For Benavides, the most striking item of the sentence for Gomez is the lack of consensus among judges in key areas relevant to the rights and due process.

"A collaborator in the administration of justice has been sentenced without being tested for malice in her actions, but mere conjecture", he said.

Ortega suggested the former prosecutor Sáez summary never produced evidence required to initiate the investigation against Gomez, as he never was able to directly identify willful misconduct of staff.

Mitchell, found for the acquittal of Gomez, because she was not aware that she "exceeded" the performance of her duties when approving the action in the case against prosecutor’s Sáez.
Gomez said Friday that she was "satisfied" that she had been formally notified of the as she now has the opportunity to sue the State of Panama in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR).

She has already taken some steps and has six months to formalize her complaint before the IACHR.She says she will not pay a penny of the $4,000 fine that was applied in exchange for six months in prison.

"I’m not going to pay for the game they want to play to see me pay the fine, as if I really was a criminal," she said.
"In this country we are so bad in terms of justice, the good guys are in prisons and the criminals are out".
  {jathumbnail off}