The scandal that arose in the INADEH offices, after two officials were filmed having sex in a kind of deposit of the entity is still in the public arena and although those involved were fired, The person who recorded said video clip could face charges and even be imprisoned.
READ ALSO: The voucher is coming! They issue a decree on the new Panama Solidarity Plan
Regarding this case, the lawyer Wyznick Ortega reacted to what happened and said that the person who recorded the material is in serious trouble.
Crítica contacted Ortega to provide details about the situation in which the person who recorded everything could be. It must be remembered that he himself resigned after the fact and at the same time those involved were fired for their inappropriate behavior.
“My legal position is that they have wanted to demonize the conduct and it is not punitive, what does fit is something for moral and ethical conduct. If we go to the internal regulations of Inadeh, the statute must be followed. That they have decided to dismiss them is not a problem, but it would be necessary to see if they comply with the procedure according to the fact that they are public officials,” he said.
He emphasizes: “At the end of the road, the person who aired the video is the one who would face a legal process, because someone else has been harmed by airing the activity, regardless of whether it was not the right place, they can file a criminal complaint for violation of privacy. One way or another down the road you will have to see what he answers, but you can expect those affected to file a complaint. They have done the procedure on the moral side. From my point of view, the same diligence that has been done with this case should be done with everyone.”
Ortega mentions that this type of material obtained illegally, if it were presented to a prosecutor’s office, would not be evidence constituted by the way in which it was obtained, but in this case of these officials it was an element for the dismissal of both. “The dismissal is acceptable, but it will not affect the rest of the workers, now everyone has been tainted by being considered antimoral and lacking ethics”.
“In the case of the one who recorded, it depends on the crime, there are several articles, one establishes fines as days, but this can be classified as the right to privacy and the right to the work relationship, because it was entered in an inappropriate manner and a test was produced that was not intended for public thoroughfares, then there is a penalty of 2 to 3 years“, he informs.
About this case so far it has been speculated that there was another person who spread the material to all, then in this sense what It is more likely that the one who recorded it could give away the one who shared it and reach an agreement to save yourself, this is known as an in-process agreement. Whoever spread the material would have to bear the blame for everything.
For Wynick, the actions of all those involved have not been the best, because the one who recorded had to deliver the material to the directors and that they establish the sanctions, in addition, he emphasizes that the fact that he raised the cell phone and recorded over the door, can be defined as repetitive behavior.