Photo: ALFREDO ESTRELLA/AFP/Getty Images
NEW YORK.- Former Mexican Defense Secretary Guillermo Galván Galván reportedly had a “close” relationship with Mexican drug traffickers, revealed Óscar Nava Valencia, alias “El Lobo”, during his testimony in the trial of Genaro García Luna.
It was during the questioning of the defense lawyer Florian Miedel that the name of the former military command during the government of Felipe Calderón emerged.
Miedel questioned “El Lobo” about alleged bribery to Mexican authorities and mentioned Galván’s name. The aid worker said that he did know him.
“There was a close relationship,” Valencia said, though he did not give details. “I do not remember well. It was a long time ago”.
Miedel pressed Nava Valencia on why he had not revealed the name of García Luna as a corrupt official, to whom drug leaders would have paid millions of dollars.
“There is a name that he never mentioned. Do you know what name?” Miedel insisted.
The lawyer reminded Nava Valencia: “Genaro García Luna: he never mentioned it before 2020.”
The aid worker justified that the prosecutors at that time focused on other leaders of cartels and drug routes, not on officials, such as the former Mexican Secretary of Public Security, who is accused of drug trafficking.
More “sensitive” witnesses
García Luna’s defense, led by César de Castro, complained this Monday before Judge Brian Cogan that the prosecutors had called the fourth cooperator without notifying, as previously agreed, at least 24 hours in advance.
At the time, De Castro said prosecutors had provided him with a list of at least 16 witnesses for this week of the trial.
“Careful what you wish for,” Judge Cogan said.
However, the defense attorney argued that there was not enough time to review the information of those witnesses, especially the “sensitive” ones, since there were at least four on the list to come and whose files had not been shared.
Judge Cogan asked prosecutors to provide the information to the defense one day before calling the aid workers “sensitive.”
It should be remembered that prosecutors have insisted that they must protect the information and names of cooperating witnesses, as they fear reprisals or that the data may be revealed in advance.