Controversy over the inclusion of former Swiss prosecutor Lenz as a witness in the Odebrecht case.

The prosecutor of the special Lava Jato team, José Domingo Pérez, is at the center of a judicial controversy as he defends the necessity of calling the former Swiss federal prosecutor, Stefan Lenz, as a witness in the trial of the Cócteles case. The relevance of his testimony has become crucial given the possibility that former Brazilian executives of Odebrecht may not attend the hearings, which could undermine the presentation of the case by the Third Collegiate Criminal Court. The origin of the controversy dates back to 2016 when Lenz, in his capacity as a prosecutor in Switzerland, seized a server from Odebrecht that contained key data about corrupt operations in several countries, including Peru. Although Lenz was hired to analyze this information after leaving the Swiss prosecutor's office, his role was sidelined for several years, raising questions about the effectiveness of the collaboration between Peruvian authorities and their Brazilian counterparts. The situation changed drastically in 2023 when Brazilian justice decided to suspend its cooperation with Peru, citing irregularities and alleged political bias in the investigation. This decision has been highlighted by the absence of the former Odebrecht executives who had committed to testify, leaving the Peruvian prosecutor's office in a vulnerable position. Pérez has argued that including Lenz as a witness is not only necessary but urgent, considering that the former Odebrecht officials have ignored subpoenas. During the hearing, the prosecutor also mentioned that the defense of some accused, such as Jaime Yoshiyama and José Chlimper Ackerman, indicated that the former Brazilian executives would not appear to testify, which further exacerbates the uncertainty surrounding the trial. The prosecutor stated that in order to access information regarding Odebrecht's corrupt activities, it is essential for the judges to hear Lenz's testimony. Additionally, he has presented reports and documents supporting his request, arguing that this is not a late request but a necessity arising from new data obtained. However, the defense of Keiko Fujimori and other accused individuals has vehemently opposed the inclusion of Lenz as a witness, arguing that he is not an expert on the facts he could testify about. They assert that the prosecutor's office had ample time during the investigation phase to summon Lenz and gather his testimony. The prosecutor has also requested that other relevant testimonies be heard in the trial, including those of Aldo Mariátegui and former president Martín Vizcarra, who could provide substantial information about the links between Odebrecht and Peruvian politics. This attempt by the prosecutor's office to add voices to its case highlights the complexity and interconnection between the business and political worlds in Peru. The context becomes even more complicated when considering that the Third Collegiate Criminal Court will have to decide whether to accept these new testimonies and documents. This process could have a decisive impact on the direction of the trial and, consequently, on the political future of the accused. Meanwhile, the political community and the public are closely watching the outcome of this trial, which has become a reflection of power struggles and the implications of corruption in the country. With the trial scheduled to continue in the coming days, pressure is mounting on the judicial system to act justly and transparently in a case that has shaken Peru. The outcome of this legal saga not only affects the accused but also has repercussions on public trust in the country's institutions. The ability of the judicial system to tackle the complexities of large-scale corruption cases, such as that of Odebrecht, will be tested in the upcoming hearings, and attention will be focused on the role that new witnesses will play and the acceptance of the evidence presented by the prosecutor's office.