The appeal filed by the former Minister, who is under investigation in the case, opposes the judicial order that stipulated that recordings of testimonies, expert reports, and interrogations would be shared with the parties without the need for transcription.
“"The refusal to transcribe statements during the investigation phase constitutes a confrontation with the principles that inspire this preliminary inquiry phase and, specifically, a violation of the right to defense."
The defense argues that the reduction of resources at the Court of First Instance cannot justify a change in criteria regarding the preservation of individuals' image, recognized by a previous order, nor the abandonment of the obligation to transcribe statements, which would harm the rights of both the investigated parties and the prosecution.
Furthermore, it is stated that the transcription previously carried out was not a substitute for the effective transfer of recordings, but rather an inherent obligation of the procedural phase. Therefore, the right to one's own image for those under investigation is independent and not interchangeable with the right to effective judicial protection and the right to defense of the parties.
“"The written record of testimonial proceedings responds to the need for not only the parties, but also the investigating judge, the trial court, and those who may need to review their content to have effective access to them for proper evaluation and use."
For all these reasons, the defense believes that the decision not to transcribe statements in a case like the DANA one directly violates the former Minister's right to defense.
