Supreme Court exonerates defendants in the Odebrecht case and shakes the Dominican justice system.

The recent ruling by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has shocked Dominican society by exonerating the only two defendants in the Odebrecht bribery case. Víctor José Díaz Rúa and Ángel Rondón Rijo, who had previously been convicted by the Court of Appeals of the National District, are now free of all blame following the Supreme Court's decision, which has sparked a wave of questions regarding the effectiveness of the judicial system in the fight against corruption. Between 2002 and 2014, Odebrecht, the Brazilian construction company, admitted to paying bribes totaling $92 million in the Dominican Republic to ensure the execution of public works. This scandal has not only had repercussions in the political and judicial spheres of the country but has also resonated internationally, becoming a symbol of corruption in Latin America. Brazil, as the epicenter of the controversy, has seen its image shaken due to these bribes, which exceeded $300 million in total. The then Attorney General, Jean Alain Rodríguez, had promised to conduct a thorough investigation involving prominent figures in Dominican politics. However, after years of investigations, the recent ruling calls into question the seriousness and depth of such inquiries. The phrase "they are all who are here, and all who are here are who they are," said by Rodríguez, becomes a bitter irony, as the acquittals have left a void that challenges the credibility of the judicial system. The Odebrecht scandal also served as a catalyst for the emergence of citizen movements in the Dominican Republic. The Green March, which demanded justice and transparency, managed to mobilize millions of Dominicans, highlighting a growing rejection of corruption in the government of then-President Danilo Medina. However, the acquittal of the defendants can be interpreted as a blow to the fight for accountability, leading many to wonder if their efforts have been in vain. The president of one of the criminal chambers of the Supreme Court, Miriam Germán, stated that the file presented by the Public Ministry lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. This statement suggests that the lack of a rigorous approach to evidence gathering has allowed those involved to evade justice. The animosity between Germán and Rodríguez has become evident in recent years, and many citizens believe that the current situation reflects those power struggles within the judicial system. The ruling has been met with a mix of disbelief and disillusionment. Many are asking whether justice has been compromised and if there is a moral responsibility on the part of the courts to protect public assets. The exoneration of Díaz Rúa and Rondón Rijo not only leaves unanswered questions about corruption in this specific case but also opens the door to impunity in future corruption cases. Additionally, there is concern about the lack of a robust and precise investigation into what has been termed "Odebrecht file 2.0." Despite having four years to carry out an independent process, the Public Ministry has failed to present a solid case that evidences corruption in this scandal, leaving a sense of distrust in the country’s judicial system. The Supreme Court ruling, signed by judges Francisco Antonio Jerez Mena, Nancy I. Salcedo Fernández, Fran Euclides Soto Sánchez, and María G. Garabito Ramírez, has made it clear that decisions regarding corruption may be subject to interpretations that do not necessarily reflect reality. The decision to return seized assets to the acquitted and lift financial restrictions on their business activities has also sparked a debate about the validity of past convictions and justice in the country. The emotional and social impact that this ruling has had is undeniable. For many, it represents a setback in the fight against corruption and a reaffirmation that those in positions of power can evade justice. Frustration is manifesting in the streets and on social media, where citizens are demanding answers and significant changes in the system. Ultimately, the Odebrecht case leaves important lessons for the Dominican Republic. The fight against corruption does not stop with this ruling, but it poses an enormous challenge for society and its institutions. The responsibility falls on each citizen to continue demanding transparency, justice, and a critical review of the processes that have led to this situation. The task now is more urgent than ever to ensure that the voice of the people is heard and that the principle of justice prevails.