He believes that his statements in an interview show that he is not impartial
The lawyer Gonzalo Boye, who defends the former president of the Government Carles Puigdemont and the director of his office, Josep Lluís Alay, has challenged the judge investigating the Voloh case.
In a letter consulted by Europa Press this Thursday, he bases his request to recuse Judge Joaquín Aguirre on the interview that he gave to German television about the case he is investigating and in which he considers he spoke “without the slightest semblance of impartiality or modesty”.
The letter from lawyer Gonzalo Boye transcribes a fragment of the interview, in which the judge stated: “It would be about the direct influence of Russia in the independence process of Catalonia, supporting the independence process, with the aim of Russia destabilizing “First, Spanish democracy and opening the back door to infiltration into all the liberal democracies of Western Europe.”
The lawyer describes it as “an absolute loss of impartiality that, furthermore, is of an intensity that has rarely been seen” in the case of a judge publicly ruling on a case that he is investigating.
The defense considers that “the interview was not even casual nor an act of irresponsibility inappropriate for someone who exercises the jurisdictional function, but rather something much more serious – a prior agreement – but which, as far as we are interested here, destroys any semblance of impartiality” of the magistrate.
This same week, Judge Aguirre agreed to extend the investigation of the separate piece of the case that investigates the alleged Russian plot of the ‘procés’ for another six months, a decision that Alay’s defense has appealed.
He also argues that in other interventions the judge has shown “absolute lack of impartiality” and claims to protect the right to an impartial judge.
The recusal document reproduces other expressions of the judge collected in the media, and in reference to Puigdemont it refers to comments such as that “he is going to shit his panties” and another in which he described him as weak and cowardly.
“Rarely has there been such obvious proof of a lack of impartiality, but in this case, it is combined with a level of rudeness that is inappropriate for the function he performs and which, in addition, resorts to commonplaces of the worst of atavistic machismos.” “, reproaches Alay’s defense when asking to remove the judge from the case, a decision that another magistrate will study.
