On August 31, 2009, Chevron provided to Ecuadorian authorities and the U.S. Department of Justice video recordings of meetings between the judge presiding over the litigation against Chevron in Lago Agrio, Ecuador and other individuals. Within days after the video recordings were disclosed, Ecuador’s Prosecutor General asked the judge in Lago Agrio to step down due to his participation in two of the recorded meetings. Ecuador’s Judiciary Council is currently investigating the judge’s conduct to determine if sanctions are warranted.
The Amazon Defense Front, the named financial beneficiary of the Lago Agrio lawsuit, has sought to discredit the video recordings for months, falsely claiming that the video recordings had been manipulated or edited. Despite more than seven months of investigation spanning at least two continents and more than five countries, the Amazon Defense Coalition’s investigators have failed to cast any doubt on the authenticity of the videos or explain the judge’s improper participation in the meetings. Indeed, the Amazon Defense Front investigative efforts further confirm that Chevron had no involvement whatsoever in planning or recording the meetings.
Chevron delivered the video recordings provided by Diego Borja to authorities in Ecuador as well as the United States and called for the appropriate parties to investigate the matter. The videos showing the participation of Judge Nunez and others in a bribery scheme have been confirmed to be authentic by the forensic expert retained by Ecuador’s Judiciary Council and by an independent forensic expert retained by Chevron.
Through their exploits, the Amazon Defense Front has also tried to attack the evidence Chevron has submitted to the court in Lago Agrio. Chevron stands by the integrity of its analytical results, which meet the highest scientific standards. The fact of the matter is that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have tried unsuccessfully for years to prove contamination and harm without any legitimate tests or medical records to support their claims. Meanwhile, it is clear that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have been falsifying reports from the outset of the trial because the scientific evidence in the trial proves Chevron’s case.