The “bribes” case: an Ecuadorian example of “lawfare”

Abstract

In the case under analysis, we observe characteristics that are common to almost all cases of "lawfare" that in one way or another result from a manipulation in the selection of judges, here "interim". As for the trial, the injury is highlighted at the beginning of congruence and the use against the sound criticism of the testimony of a "repentant", which the defense could not question. The arbitrary use of doctrinal concepts to avoid analyzing the evidence with respect to each of the participants is also very evident, and the argument with which it is intended to assign the main defendant the character of organizer is particularly singular.