Petsmart Dewormer Cats

Dino analysis of how the Commission found that the company knew the certificate was false.

This little article I published in Dialogue with the Court in June 2008 and Law and Justice (electronic journal published by Peruvian judges). If in case you're interested, here is the link to the full article: http://www.justiciayderecho.org/revista2/index1.html

I did not know that the certificate was false
analysis of how the Commission found that the company knew that the certificate was false

Presentation .- After a sharp increase in prices bricks, which occurred in 2007, the Technical Secretariat of the Commission of Free Competition of Indecopi (hereafter ST) opened an investigation into several brick companies, in order to determine whether the increase in prices was due to factors brick market or potential anti-competitive practices. To that end, he made inspection visits at the premises of brick companies. Some of these companies refused to provide information to officials of the ST required in this diligence, which resulted in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings before the Commission of Free Competition (hereinafter the Commission) against these companies, unjustified failure to provide the requested information.

One company reported Bricks Fortaleza SA (hereinafter, Fortaleza), presents a medical certificate in which he claimed showed that the person who, according to ST, I would have attended that day was not in the company, she is sick. However, after investigation by the ST, is that the certificate was false, since they never had been issued for his alleged issuer, Dr. Clifford Poma Rodríguez (hereinafter, Dr. Poma).

In view of this, there began a new disciplinary procedure for submitting Fortaleza knowingly false medical certificate. The company agreed to the falsity of the document, however, claimed that she did not know that the document was false. Fortaleza argued that only moved the document to him by his employee - Ms. Jeanette Jacqueline De La Cruz Vilchez, (hereinafter, Ms. De la Cruz) - is not liable for the conduct of it. On the other hand, Ms. De la Cruz did not show the certificate to the Commission, which is why he could not open any procedure.

This situation seems to reflect an impasse. To punish Fortaleza in the second procedure, the Commission should have sufficient evidence to show that the company knew that the document was false. Otherwise, it would absolve her, without being able to prosecute Ms. De la Cruz, in what seems a deliberate act of deceiving the authorities. Thus, both people would be free of penalty.

The purpose of this article is to analyze whether the facts and reasoning set forth in Resolution No. 011-2008-CLC/INDECOPI, there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Fortaleza knew that the medical certificate was false. To this end, we will use some tools from the theory of argumentation and evidence for analyzing the decision of the Commission, such as diagrams and charts, allowing us to visualize, synthesize and assess the chain of argument contained in that declaration. In some cases, we will make explicit some assumptions that, from our point of view, are implicit in the reasoning of the Commission.