The First Settlement Court for Criminal Cases admitted 23 pieces of evidence and rejected another 19 against the former Minister of Labor and Labor Development (Mitradel), Alma Cortés, who will be prosecuted along with two other people, on July 17, for alleged of unjustified enrichment.

Among the evidence admitted by the first judge to liquidate criminal cases, Agueda Rentería, to the former minister are the testimonies of Tatiana Chérigo Herrera, Omar Matos Castillo, Miriam Vásquez, Rolando Solís, Oldemar Guerra, Lastenia Domingo, Tamara de Parodi, Michelle Caballero, Janio Lescure, Rubén Darío Moreno, Rosemay Cedeño, José María Torrijos Legazpi and two auditors.

Also on that list are the Vice Minister of the Presidency and former Secretary General of the Comptroller's Office, Carlos García Molino; the ex-controller Federico Humbert and the deputy Luis Ernesto Carles, who for a time was Cortés' vice minister when she was in Mitradel.

All will be summoned to the trial by the defense of Cortés.

As documentary evidence, the court accepted a series of certifications from the Court of Accounts and the Public Prosecutor's Office, related to a process followed in this area against the former minister.

In relation to the 19 tests not admitted to the defense of Cortés, there are reports requested from local banks on her financial activity.

$2.6 million questioned
The investigation into the case began in June 2016, when the Comptroller General, then in charge of Humbert, delivered copies of an audit report related to Cortés' estate. According to that document, Cortés could not have justified $2.6 million acquired between July 1, 2009 and May 31, 2015, when she was a minister.

In December 2022, the Superior Court for Settlement of Criminal Cases revoked a dismissal in favor of Cortés, in a process for alleged embezzlement to the detriment of Mitradel, related to the collection of travel expenses to attend meetings of the International Labor Organization (ILO), in Geneva, between June and November 2011, for $49,000.

On that occasion, the court considered that an assessment had been made that deviated from the parameters established by law when analyzing the process followed by the former minister and five other former officials.