MADRID, 20 Mar. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The National Court has endorsed this Wednesday that the investigating judge of the ‘Democratic Tsunami’ case, Manuel García Castellón, investigates whether this platform had among its objectives to act at the passage of the delegation of King Felipe VI on a visit to Barcelona in July 2020.
This is stated in an order from the Third Section of the Criminal Chamber, collected by Europa Press, in which the court rejects the appeal presented by the defense of the investigated Marta Molina and points out that these proceedings agreed on January 26 do not constitute that it is a prospective investigation.
The Chamber recalls that in addition to investigating this possible action when the king passed in 2020, the judge also requested information regarding the incidents that occurred at the El Prat airport on October 14, 2019, after the ‘procés’ ruling was published, the death of a French citizen on that date or the cuts on the AP-7 motorway between November 11 and 13.
The court indicates that the law establishes the inadmissibility of appealing on appeal the decision of the investigating judge that consists of the practice of any investigative procedure, since the resolution that can be appealed is only the opposite, that is, the one that denies a of the parties to carry out the proceedings that have been requested.
Regarding the argument put forward by Molina’s defense that it is a prospective case, the court responds that what the court is pursuing with its investigations is to delve into the knowledge of the facts, in which there are harmed people and a possible use of instruments capable of damaging and harming.
“On the other hand,” adds the Chamber, “it can be emphasized that the court, ordering the investigations to the police forces, as the appealed order does, starts from a limited field, which are plural actions deployed within a limited time and which explains in the argument,” he points out.
And he adds that García Castellón already has “sufficient background information on the reality of actions of a possible criminal nature”, so “he does not come out blank, in the abstract, to see what he comes across.” “It goes deeper, it investigates, it always pursues the maximum knowledge of what would have happened, of what always has prior ‘notitia criminis’, more or less deep in the knowledge of what happened, news of the crime that it has the obligation to verify and expand”, Explain.
Regarding the death of the French citizen in El Prat and the closures of the AP-7 highway, the Chamber also ruled and affirmed that the agreed procedures were appropriate.
According to Molina’s defense, these two extremes ended with archiving resolutions by the corresponding territorial courts. But the National Court blames him for not mentioning the legal precept violated by the investigating judge for wanting to clarify those facts that are for the benefit of the entire process.
“There is a considerable qualitative difference between the overall vision to which the ‘a quo’ court is called, given the nature of the crimes it investigates, and the absolutely compartmentalized vision of the courts of the territory. From that consideration comes the success and the relevance of the investigations” of the investigating judge, he concludes.
