Case 1:11-cv-24599-MGC Document 55-29 Entered on FLSD ... · Case 1:11-cv-24599-MGC Document 55-29 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2012 Page 5 of 16 5. national jurisprudence on appeals,

EXHIBIT X Case 1:11-cv-24599-MGC Document 55-29 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2012 Page 1 of 16

1

AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY DR. JUAN PABLO ALBÁN ALENCASTRO

1. My name is Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, I am an Ecuadorian citizen, an Attorney, currently working as a professor at two universities, living on Calle Chimborazo Lote 106, Apartamen to 324, parish of Cumbayá, city of Quito, Republic of Ecuador.

DEPONENT´S BACKGROUND AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

2. I was granted the degrees of Bachelor in Legal Sciences ), Attorney at the Republic’s Tribunals and Courts, and Doctor in Jurisprudence by the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador university. I also hold a Master’s degree in International Human Rights Law , granted with honors by the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America.

3. In the course of my degree, among other activities, I worked at the Legal Bureau FALCONI PUIG & ASOCIADOS in the city of Quito, Ecuador; I was Adviser of the Government of the Republic of Ecuador’s Undersecretary; an Attorney in the Legal Department of FILANBANCO S.A. (in charge of administrative, civil, penal, and labor litigation); a Coordinator in the Penal Area of the Free Legal Office at the Jurisprudence Faculty of the Pontificia Universidad Católica Ecuador (hereinafter “PUCE”) Law School and Head of the same entity; a Consultant and later Head of the PUCE Human Rights Clinic (now Human Rights Center); a Professor at various chairs in the same institution; a recipient of the Rómulo Gallegos grant at the Organization of American States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; and associate Coordinator in the Institute for Latino Studies cultural extension program at the University of Notre Dame; and a Human Rights Specialist of the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, where I successively served as associate Officer for Argentina and Peru, Litigation Officer at the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, and Coordinator for the Andes Section II.

4. I am currently a full-time Professor at the Jurisprudence College of Universidad San Francisco de Quito university; Head of the Free Legal Office at the same institution; a Professor in the Master’s program in Constitutional Law at the Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar university; and a Consultant on the Reform of Law Administration, International Litigation, Human Rights, and International Humanitarian Law, for various national and international organizations and bodies.

5. In addition to my academic activities as a University Professor, I have been an instructor, speaker or guest lecturer, for the following institutions: Universidad Central del Ecuador university (Ecuador); Universidad de Cuenca university (Ecuador); Universidad Iberoamericana university (Dominican Republic); Universidad Católica de Cochabamba university (Bolivia); Department of Language and Foreign Studies, American University (United States); Washington College of Law, American University (United States); Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Occidente ITESO, the Western Institute of Technology and Higher Education; Universidad Jesuita de Guadalajara university (Mexico); Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation-WHINSEC (United States); Special Commission for the

A-665Case 1:11-cv-24599-MGC Document 55-29 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2012 Page 2 of 16

2

Clarification of Femicides, Federal Chamber of Deputies (Mexico); Inter-American Institute on Human Rights (Costa Rica); Illustrious Law College of Lima (Peru); Commission on Social Action at the Peruvian Episcopal Conference (Peru); International Service for Human Rights (Switzerland); Inter-American Court on Human Rights (Costa Rica); Projusticia (Ecuador); Ecuadorian Air Force.

6. Additionally, in the past I have acted as a civil trial attorney before the Courts and Tribunals of Ecuador.

PETITIONER OF THE AFFIDAVIT

7. I present this opinion at the request of the attorneys of the plaintiffs in the case María Aguinda and others v. Chevron Texaco.

REVISED DOCUMENTS

8. Documents accessed in order to prepare this affidavit:

o A video recording made on March 3rd 2007, of a slide presentation made by Attorney Pablo Fajardo Mendoza.

o A communication signed by Engineer Richard Cabrera Vega, addressed to the President of the High Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, dated July 23rd 2007.

o A communication signed by Engineer Richard Cabrera Vega, addressed to the President of the High Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, dated August 17th 2007.

o An order passed by the Presidency of the High Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, October 3rd 2007, at 11.00h.

o A communication signed by Engineer Richard Cabrera Vega, addressed at the Acting President of the High Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, dated October 11th 2007.

o A communication signed by Engineer Richard Cabrera Vega, addressed at the President of the High Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, dated January 7th 2008.

o An order passed by the Presidency of the High Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, January 30th 2008, at 09.00h.

o An order passed by the Presidency of the High Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, February 25th 2008, at 08.10h.

o A communication signed by Engineer Richard Cabrera Vega, addressed at the President of the High Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, dated April 1st 2008.

o An order passed by the Presidency of the High Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, April 14th 2008, at 11.25h.

o An affidavit made by Pablo Fajardo at the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, dated May 5th 2010.

o The English version of a document submitted to the Presidency of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbíos by Adolfo Callejasa Ribadeneira, judicial


3

attorney for Chevron Corporation, in the oral summary proceedings 002-2003, signed by Dr.. Iván Alberto Racines E., with no date on said document.

o A document submitted to the Presidency of the Provincial Court of Justicie of Sucumbíos by Pablo Fajardo de Mendoza in trial 002-2003, signed by Attorney Pablo Fajardo de Mendoza, with no date on said document.

o The English version of a document submitted to the Presidency of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbíos by Adolfo Callejas Ribadeneira, judicial attorney for Chevron Corporation, in the oral summary proceedings 002-2003, signed by Dr. Adolfo Callejas Ribadeneira, with no date on said document.

o The order passed by the Presidency of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbíos, August 2nd 2010, at 09.00h, in the oral summary proceedings 002-2010 [sic].

o The order passed by the Presidency of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbíos, October 11th 2010, at 17.17h, with regard to trial no. 002-2003.

o A document submitted to the Presidency of the Provincial High Court of Sucumbíos by Adolfo Callejas Ribadeneira, judicial attorney for Chevron Corporation, in the oral summary proceedings 002-2003, signed by Dr. Enrique Carvajal S., with a seal of acceptance dated December 20th 2010, at 08.50h.

o A document submitted to the Presidency of the Provincial High Court of Sucumbíos by Adolfo Callejas Ribadeneira, judicial attorney for Chevron Corporation, in the oral summary proceedings 002-2003, signed by Dr. Iván Alberto Racines E., with a seal of acceptance dated December 21st 2010, at 11.00h.

o Pages 1 to 98 of a document submitted to the Presidency of the Provincial High Court of Sucumbíos by Adolfo Callejas Ribadeneira, judicial attorney for Chevron Corporation, in the oral summary proceedings 002-2003. The pages I had access to bore no date of acceptance.

PROFESSIONAL OPINION

FIRST QUESTION: IS THERE ANY LEGAL PROVISION IN ECUADORIAN LAW WHICH FORBIDS THE PARTIES IN A CIVIL TRIAL FROM CONTACTING THE INDEPENDENT EXPERTS APPOINTED BY THE COURT IN CHARGE OF THE TRIAL BEFORE THE EXPERT REVIEW IS DELIVERED TO THE COURT?

9. To begin it is important to understand that the civil law system in Ecuador is different to Anglo-Saxon law, and is based on laws and codes. There is no provision in the Ecuadorian legal system which forbids the parties in a civil trial from contacting the experts appointed by the Court in charge of the trial before they submit their review.


4

10. In fact, article 335 (Appendix A) of the current Organic Code of the Judicial Function, which establishes the express prohibitions for attorneys in trials, makes no mention of contacting the experts appointed by the Court without the other party being present.

SECOND QUESTION: WHAT IS THE USUAL PRACTICE IN ECUADOR WITH REGARD TO CONTACTING EXPERTS APPOINTED BY THE COURT IN CHARGE OF THE TRIAL?

11. In our country, usual practice is, when the Court has decided to appoint experts to review a certain issue, for the parties to contact them, firstly to let them know that they have been appointed and are obliged to appear in court on the day and time established by the authorities to take their positions. From then on, it is usual and valid for the parties to contact the expert or experts in order to facilitate their work, without the other party being present, be it by providing documents and information be it by providing the material means to carry out their task, for instance, transportation, tools, or instruments which the expert lacks.

12. Meeting with the experts without the other party being present, which is the rule and not the exception, is not only not forbidden, but indeed effectively aids the adequate fulfillment of the expert’s or experts’ functions in situations of a high scientific complexity, given the limited technological resources which our country has to provide technical information for the efficient administration of justice.

13. As a general rule, the methods for contacting independent experts appointed by the Court, without the other party being present, are not restricted by the Civil Procedure Code, the only exception to this being, by means of violence, threats, promises, briber, or other irregular mechanisms, to lead the expert to lie in violation of the oath made when appearing before the trial judge. This will give rise to penal liabilities for active bribery, a crime established in article 290 of the Penal Code (Appendix B) in force. Should there be any evidence that the expert accepted any kind of gift to fail to meet his or her duties, this would give rise to penal liabilities for passive bribery, a crime established in article 286 of the Penal Code (Appendix B) in force. All the aforementioned without prejudice to the eventual liabilities for perjury in reporting to a public authority, a crime established in article 354 of the Penal Code in force (Appendix C).

THIRD QUESTION: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THAT THE PARTIES IN A CIVIL TRIAL MAKE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO A COURT-DESIGNED EXPERT?

14. In our legal system, the parties in a trial are obliged to comply with the orders dictated by the judge or Court. Before the Organic Code of the Judicial Function came into force on March 9th 2009, the Political Constitution of the Republic already established in article 83.1 (Appendix D) that it is a duty for individuals to comply with the legitimate decisions made by competent authorities. In addition, by virtue of the principles of trial loyalty and commonality of the evidence, extensively developed in the


5

national jurisprudence on appeals, the parties were and are obliged to facilitate the work of an expert appointed by a judge or Court.

15. Currently, article 132.1 of the Organic Code of the Judicial Functions (Appendix E) allows the trial judge to fine with a compulsory and progressive daily fine so that the party or to whomever it may apply complies with their orders, following the content of their decision, without prejudice to the legal consequences resulting, at the time of making the ruling, from the contempt of the court by the party. Hence the compulsory nature of court orders.

16. Non-compliance with an order issued by the judicial authority in a situation of this nature might also result in penal liability, in accordance with what is established in article 234 of the Penal Code in force (Appendix F), which establishes the crime known as contempt of the court.

17. I have reviewed the ruling of the Court dated April 14 2008, a court order of this nature enables the parties to contact the expert or experts appointed by the judge or court without the other party being present in order to provide the expert with the information or documents required for the adequate fulfillment of their functions, inasmuch as said contacts do not include irregular behaviors, as explained in paragraph 13 of this statement. The possibility is not precluded that during these contacts the parties, in addition to providing technical-scientific elements, may also expound their views on the controversy to the experts, which of course is in no way binding for the experts, who in their capacity as technicians in a given art or profession can decide what is relevant for the purposes of their review and what is not.

18. Should the expert, after carrying out his or her research and assessing the elements available, reach the conclusion that the information, documents, or views provided by one or both parties are relevant, he or she can cite them as the basis for his or her opinion and reproduce them as his or her own in his review.

FOURTH QUESTION: IN WHAT WAY CAN CONTACT BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE COURT-APPOINTED EXPERTS AND THE PARTIES IN THE TRIAL?

19. Given that there is no express legal prohibition for parties in civil litigation to contact the court-appointed expert or experts, without the other party being present, said contacts might take the form of meetings, telephone calls, video conferences, written communications, etc. , as long as in the course of said contacts no illegal acts take place, in accordance with what was expounded in section VII of the present affidavit.

FIFTH QUESTION: IN THE LIGHT OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN IN THE PREVIOUS SECTIONS, WOULD THE CONTACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE PARTIES WITH ENGINEER RICHARD CABRERA, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORAL SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS 002-2003 HELD BEFORE THE PRESIDENCY OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE OF SUCUMBÍOS, BE INAPPROPRIATE?

20. Taking into account the criteria expounded in my previous answers and having examined the documents made available to me, specified in section V of the present affidavit, including the allegations of irregular conducted presented by Chevron, it is my view that the contacts established by the parties with expert Engineer Richard Cabrera,


6

appointed by the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbíos, in the context of oral summary proceedings 002-2003, are not irregular, arbitrary, or illegal.

21. They are not irregular as there is a constant practice in the Ecuadorian legal domain of parties’ contacting court-appointed experts without the other party being present in order to facilitate their work, be it by providing information or documents which the expert might otherwise not obtain or by providing material means, such as transportation.

22. They are not arbitrary as the judge of the trial him or herself ordered the parties, by means of the order of January 30th 2008 at 09.00h, to provide the information required by the expert as soon as possible.

23. They are not illegal, for, as I have previously explained, there are no legal provisions forbidding the parties from contacting the experts in a trial.

SIXTH QUESTION: EVEN IF THE COURT DECIDED NOT TO USE AN EXPERT REVIEW, COULD IT, IN VIEW OF THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES AS PART OF THEIR CLAIMS, MAKE A DECISION?

24. In accordance with what is established in article 262 of the Code of Civil Procedure in force (Appendix G), the judge is under no obligation to follow the experts’ views against his or her own conviction, that is to say, the Court has the power to use or not the opinion given by an expert during trial as an element for judgment. In consequence, if not using an expert review, the judge can use any other verifiable technical-scientific evidence or information included in the file and which supports the claims made by the parties as elements on which to ground his or her sentence.

25. In addition, inasmuch as the expert review contains technical information which can be verified by other means, it can be retained by the court as a grounding element, as it does not reflect the expert’s opinion but objective factual conditions, independent from the point of view of the expert on the matter on which he or she was asked to give a view.

SEVENTH QUESTION: IS THERE ANY LEGAL PROVISION IN ECUADOR WHICH PREVENTS AN EXPERT IN A LEGAL PROCESS TO REPRODUCE OR USE IN HIS OR HER REVIEW TECHNICAL INFORMATION COMPILED BY THIRD PARTIES?

26. There are no legal provisions which forbid the expert to refer in his or her review to or include technical information compiles by a third person or institution.

27. It should be added that precisely due to his or her capacity as expert in a certain art of profession, the Court-appointed expert is given the power to deem whether to use or not the information or documents provided by the parties, be they technical or even an explanation of their position and claims in the trial and their demands derived from the controversy. Obviously, the expert is in no position to rule on the case, but it is evident that the conclusions reached by the expert in his or her research will one way or the other confirm the position of one of the parties in litigation, which does not per se reflect the expert’s being partial of having fallen to undue influence.


7

28. In these terms, I provide the opinion requested, as I most faithfully know and understand.

29. I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Republic of Ecuador, the United States of America, the legislations of the States of California, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, and the laws of the District of Columbia, and the laws of any jurisdiction applicable, that all the aforementioned is true and correct, and that this Affidavit was written on February 17th 2011 in Quito, Ecuador.

[SIGNATURE] Sr. Juan Pablo Albán A.








