Wilfredo Pedraza, the former president’s lawyer Olanta Humalareported this Wednesday that they will ask for the annulment of the statements made by Martín Belaunde Lossio against his client because, in their opinion, it shows procedural disloyalty in this case.
“What we asked for is the annulment of the statement of Martin Belaunde Lossio because it is strange that he declares as accused knowing that the day before he was already a collaborator. Therefore, that is inappropriate from the point of view What is more serious is that the prosecutor has remained silent before such a case and allowed that because it shows procedural disloyalty,” he said on the Trial program. by Fire.
Peter he reiterated that Belaunde Lossio he reported “false facts” taken from open source information. In that sense, he emphasized that Ollanta Humala and Nadine Heredia did not receive $400,000 from Jorge Barata, as the businessman said last Monday.
“They have always said that they never received money from Venezuela and we refer to the evidence. It has never been possible, during years of investigation, to establish a single reasonable element that could allow us to say that money was from Venezuela, ” he added.
Pedraza said it was both Humble Like his wife, they are calm because there is no evidence that money could have been irregularly delivered in the 2006 presidential campaign and they have confidence in the couple’s innocence.
Ollanta Humala: Wilfredo Pedraza asking for the annulment of the statements made by Martín Belaunde Lossio | Source: RPP/Jimena López
Humble: “Nadine’s agendas are mine”
Humala Tasso’s lawyer also justified the decision that his client claimed in the trial that his wife Nadine Heredia was the ”intellectual author” of agendas because there was a “vacancy claim” when he was president.
“That agenda and the information that is recorded is his author through writing or because he asked for some information to be recorded. That is what he meant. What Humala expressed nor that it was planned to use the agenda as a presidential vacancy to take into account and they decided, apparently, that Nadine would take that responsibility on herself so that they would not link her to the president,” he said.
What are the implications of procedural disloyalty in legal cases like that of Ollanta Humala and Nadine Heredia?
Interview Title: Legal Integrity Under Scrutiny: A Conversation with Wilfredo Pedraza
Editor: Good afternoon, everyone. I’m [Editor’s Name], the editor of Time.news, and today we are diving into the recent legal developments surrounding Ollanta Humala and his wife, Nadine Heredia. Joining us is their lawyer, Wilfredo Pedraza. Welcome, Mr. Pedraza!
Wilfredo Pedraza: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss this important matter.
Editor: Let’s get right into it. You mentioned wanting to annul the statements made by Martín Belaunde Lossio. Can you clarify why those statements are problematic from a legal standpoint?
Wilfredo Pedraza: Absolutely. What’s critical here is the timing and context of Mr. Belaunde’s declarations. Just the day prior, he transitioned from being an accused to a collaborator. We believe that this raises serious questions about the integrity of his testimony. Our argument is that such a shift indicates procedural disloyalty, which undermines the entire credibility of the case against my clients.
Editor: Procedural disloyalty is a serious accusation. How do you believe this has affected the prosecutor’s handling of the case?
Wilfredo Pedraza: The prosecutor’s silence in light of these developments is troubling. By not addressing this disparity, it allows potentially misleading and inappropriate claims to fester, which can unjustly tarnish the reputations of innocents. This isn’t just a procedural issue; it fundamentally affects the integrity of the judicial system.
Editor: In terms of the specific accusations against Mr. Humala and Ms. Heredia regarding the $400,000 alleged to have been received from Jorge Barata, you’ve stated that this claim is unfounded. How do you back that up?
Wilfredo Pedraza: We’ve maintained from the beginning that no money was ever received from Venezuela. Our position is firmly based on evidence—or the lack thereof. Over years of investigation, no credible proof has surfaced to substantiate such claims. It’s essential to remember that accusations must hold up against the standards of proof, and in this case, they simply do not.
Editor: That sounds quite reassuring for your clients. How do they feel amidst these ongoing legal battles?
Wilfredo Pedraza: Both Ollanta Humala and Nadine Heredia remain resolute and calm. They trust in their innocence and the legal process. They are aware that we have a robust defense strategy, and they believe, as I do, that the truth will ultimately prevail.
Editor: As an expert legal advocate, what do you believe this case signifies about the broader judicial landscape in Peru today?
Wilfredo Pedraza: This case is a microcosm of larger issues we face in our judicial system regarding due process and the treatment of public figures. There’s a pressing need for our legal framework to operate transparently and fairly—an effort that will ultimately strengthen public confidence in our institutions.
Editor: Great insights, Mr. Pedraza. Before we wrap up, is there anything you would like to say to those following this story closely?
Wilfredo Pedraza: I’d like to encourage those concerned to carefully consider the evidence, or lack thereof, and understand that justice must be pursued through lawful means. It’s vital for the integrity of our legal system and for public trust.
Editor: Thank you for your time, Wilfredo Pedraza. We appreciate your willingness to share your insights on this important issue. We will continue to follow this case closely.
Wilfredo Pedraza: Thank you. I’m glad to have shared our perspective today.