The recording made by a third party who does not participate in the conversation is not valid as evidence in a judicial process, but the wiretapping of intervened telephones authorized by a judge is

The Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code states the guidelines for a recording to be part of a judicial process and even become evidence for the confirmation of a crime, that is, have legal value in a trial.

The audio and transcripts carried out around the case called by the Prosecutor’s Office as Encuentro, which would involve Rubén Cherres, an alleged friend of Danilo Carrera Drouet, who is the brother-in-law of the President of the Republic, Guillermo Lasso, require a series of skills to authenticate the source file of the recording and if the voices belong to the people referred to.

Research The post shows an alleged network of corruption in the management of public office and alleged links of those close to the regime with drug trafficking and organized crime. One of his livelihoods is a police report.

In the case of the recordings, they have to meet certain context conditions so that they are finally considered as part of the judicial process, according to experts in criminal matters.

The first is that previously the Prosecutor’s Office has the authorization of a competent judge, within an investigation process, to make wiretaps with the intervention of certain mobile devices.

The second is that the audio has been recorded by at least one of the people involved in the conversationwhat is this participate in the dialogue held. “For example, if you and I meet to plan a robbery, and I record while we talk, that does have legal value,” says criminal lawyer Julio César Cueva.

Everything indicates, says Cueva, that some of the Cherres audios presented by The post they are recorded by a third person who does not intervene in the conversation, so they have no legal value, adds the specialist. “Even if he was in the meeting, but if he is not heard in the conversation of the person recording, well, that is not valid, it has no value, he does not have legal authorization to record”.

In addition, it is not known who the third party that recorded is, or at least has not been identified, he points out.

If the transcripts are part of a police report involving a prosecutor, it is assumed to be derived from wiretaps authorized by a judge; in this context, they could be valid, clarifies Kléber Sigüencia Suárez, criminal lawyer and professor of Criminal Law.

After compliance with these conditions, then, the technical steps (expertises) are followed. “From the criminal point of view, the audios are considered an element of conviction that can contribute to an investigation and that with that the Prosecutor’s Office supports an accusation or distorts it.. For these to have probative value, they must first be subject to what is known as chain of custody, which corresponds to the Department of Criminalistics and Forensic Sciences. And then, from the technical point of view, the audios are subjected to expertise”, says Sigüencia.

He first is the expertise to authenticate that the audio or video recording It was not edited or manipulated, so the original recording device is needed.

“I do not think that The post have the device or recorder where it was recorded; surely they only have the audio; So, it cannot be authenticated. It must be removed as far as possible from the original recording element; That’s why they ask for your cell phone if you recorded it. This first expertise is called audio and video, and serves to demonstrate that it came from an original format that was not edited or adulterated.”, says Cueva.

He second technical step is the verification that the voices that appear belong to the people who are alluded to, that is, a voice identification skill. In this case, the judge requests the respective voice samples.

The aforementioned, such as Cherres, can refuse to deliver their voice sample. “Those indicated are not required, because it is an act of self-incrimination investigation. They cannot be forced to give blood, DNA or voice samples.”, affirms Cueva.

However, there is the possibility to check with the use of other gadgets. One of them is to confirm the voice of recordings from the past; For example, if the aforementioned participated as a witness in some other previous judicial process in a hearing that was public and recorded; Or even in an interview.

Context tests can also be set. Photos or videos of people meeting talking and testimonies from witnesses who saw them, says Sigüenza.

Without these conditions, the audios can only serve as an indication to start an investigation and verify if what is saidsuch as the signing of a certain contract with an overprice, finally it was done as indicated on the recording.

In that case, the proof is the signing of the contract or some concrete fact. “The indication told us, the audio indicated that they were going to sign a contract for such an amount; So, we are going to look for the contract: the signatures are theirs, the proof is the contract”, says Cueva. (YO)