Defense discrimination in the case of an entrepreneur

19 Jun, 2015

Source: La Tribuna

Tito Hernández, legal counsel for entrepreneurs, Schucri Kafie and Juan Madrid, complained that the judge did not take into account various valid arguments so that precautionary measures be granted to his clients.

Hernández expounded that in the presentation of evidence so that his clients would be able to defend themselves without incarceration, sufficient proof was submitted, but all of it was denied.

Defense presented by schucry Kafie and Juan Madrid’s legal counsel

1.- Voluntary presentation of the accused on June 13, 2015, at 10:00 A.M.

2.- Enough family related and economic proof to insure that the accused were not flight risks. (denied).

3.- Legal credentials as honorary attaché which according to the Vienna Convention intervenes with his diplomatic relations and the effective exercise of his duties.

4.- The alleged felony was subject to bail.

5.- Application of article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic in which the accused is favored by the senior citizen law upon the date of signing the contract in 2011.

6.- Respect of article 89, that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

Dimesa denounces discrimination against its directors

La Tribuna

13 Jun, 2015

Schucry Kafie complied yesterday by voluntarily presenting himself in the courts of law to respond to the charges made against him, assured DIMESA, through a statement released yesterday.

After the hearing, the entrepreneur suffered a cardiac affliction and was taken to a private hospital.

Afterwards, DIMESA released a statement which points out, “that due to the incarceration of Schucry Luis Kafie and Juan Madrid, we wish to let the public know our outrage and consternation for the decision made by the judge to order preventive incarceration for Schucry Kafie Larach and Juan Alberto Madrid Casaca, despite the fact that they presented themselves voluntarily to collaborate with the judicial system, and that enough evidence was submitted to prove that they had no intention of leaving the country and would be adhering to due process.”

The document adds, “we consider that there is a flagrant discrimination since in 100% of similar cases of these alleged accusations, the accused are granted to defend themselves without incarceration. This is why we do not understand the reasons the court might have had to rule so excessive a measure.”

It also emphasizes that “DIMESA directors presented themselves voluntarily because they have nothing to hide and they wish to contribute with a legal and transparent process that will focus on the facts and not on political montages made for the press with the purpose of assigning blame, when there is none to be had.”

About the contract, it refers that “we wish to reiterate that the contract between DIMESA and IHSS cannot be seen as a simple estimate for the value of equipment, but as an integral service that encompassed financing, maintenance, and parts supplying, spare parts, accessories, as well as training for workers. Moreover, it was won in an international public contest which was approved on all levels, from the board of directors of IHSS, passing through a Health Commission, obtaining a majority of votes by Congressmen and ratified by the Executive branch.

Afterwards DIMESA states, “we have all evidence that support all our shareholders actions and regarding the IHSS’s contract show that everything abided the law.”

“DIMESA belongs to a business group that has been investing in our country for over 75 years, and has been doing so in support of development of the Honduran people. We demand that Schucry Kafie Larach and Juan Alberto Madrid Casaca be granted precautionary measures, so that they may exercise their defense in freedom, as is due in this type of processes and that they not be discriminated with unconfessable intentions.”

“Article 89 of the Constitution of the Republic states that every person is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. We hope that from now on the facts prevail and not the opinions of interested parties that do not wish for the truth to prevail,” ends DIMESA’s statement.

Schucry Kafie will voluntarily present himself in the courts of law

La Tribuna

8 Jun, 2015

On the allegations made against him, Schucry Kafie emphatically rejects any accusations made against himself and DIMESA and confirms his right to present himself voluntarily, as the judge requested, doing so to show that he adheres to the law.

Kafie, who belongs to a business group committed to Honduras for the past 75 years and has been investing in the development of our country, rejected the allegations made against him and DIMESA, one of the suppliers for Instituto Hondureno de Seguridad Social (IHSS), whose contract was canceled unilaterally by the Board of Auditors.

In a statement released by the Company they explained that, “DIMESA’s contract became effective in 2011 as a result of a competitive international bidding process, complying with all the stages of state’s contractual requirements. It was approved with a duration of 84 months, that is 7 years.”

However, “with barely 40 months of being in effect, the Board of Auditors at IHSS decided to terminate the contract, on January 31, 2015, that is when DIMESA ceased providing services, despite the fact that there was a substantial increase in patients’ assistance in diverse medical needs within the IHSS, having an annual increase of over fifty thousand new assistances,” points out the statement.

According to DIMESA, “this contract cannot be valued as a simple quote for equipment, but must be weighed in as part of the integral service that encompassed way more than just the supplying of equipment.”

“It included,” they stated, “the financing, maintenance, and supplying of parts, repairs, spare parts, and accessories, as well as personnel training. In this sense, the equipment financed by the company received monthly maintenance, both preventive and corrective, training was provided, parts were supplied and accessories in an unlimited fashion, until the contract was terminated.”

In the retelling of the facts, it was stated that “DIMESA’s technical team was at the institution’s use, which included 85 health care professionals specialized in biomedicine, 75 of which were biomedical experts to provide specialized attention. To date, IHSS counts with the most modern biomedical equipment of all the hospitals.”

On the other hand, “the contract included 558 biomedical equipment pieces, including magnetic resonance equipment, equipment for CT scans, x-ray with fluoroscopy, towers for neurosurgeries, mechanical ventilators, neonatal incubators, and towers for endourology among other new equipment, and 190 accessories for radiological protection.”

Furthermore, they assure that, “we have the documentation that supports the costs of the equipment as well as the services rendered.”

Finally they stated that, “DIMESA developed an orderly transition of responsibilities with IHSS and that the equipment’s full functioning was completely proven as well as the rendering of its services.”