María Eugenia López
María Eugenia López is a magistrate serving in the Panamanian judiciary, known for her involvement in significant legal decisions. She presided over the ruling that granted former president Ricardo Martinelli a timeframe to appeal his conviction in the New Business case, which has drawn considerable media attention and public interest due to its political implications.
Global Media Ratings
Countries Mentioned
| Country | Mentions | Sentiment | Dominance | + Persistence | x Population | = Reach | x GDP (millions) | = Power |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panama | 3 | 5.00 | 0.28% | +20% | 4,314,768 | 14,449 | $76,000 | 255$ |
| Totals | 3 | 4,314,768 | 14,449 | $76,000 | 255$ |
Interactive World Map
Each country's color is based on "Mentions" from the table above.
Recent Mentions
Panama:
María Eugenia López, the president of the Supreme Court of Justice, declined to comment on the criticisms of the judges of guarantees.
5
Panama:
Mulino expressed his concerns to María Eugenia López, the president of the Supreme Court of Justice, regarding how judges handle certain cases.
5
Panama:
María Eugenia López is the president magistrate of the Court to whom the habeas data actions are directed.
5
Panama:
María Eugenia López is a magistrate whose position was referenced in the context of the court's ruling.
5
Panama:
María Eugenia López recognized that organized crime and corruption are major threats to citizen security.
6
Panama:
María Eugenia López is the president magistrate of the Court who was informed about the handling of certain cases.
5
Panama:
María Eugenia López stated that the budget cuts will primarily affect 486 job positions and the creation of new judicial offices.
5
Panama:
Mulino expressed his concerns to María Eugenia López regarding the judges' approach to certain processes.
5
Panama:
María Eugenia López recognized that distrust in the judicial system is one of the main obstacles to achieving efficient justice administration.
7
Panama:
María Eugenia López is another magistrate who contributed to the ruling in the case.
6