The court sees no evidence of a crime in the actions of the judge of the National Court
The Supreme Court (TS) has agreed to reject, due to lack of evidence, the complaint that Podemos filed last November against the judge of the National Court Manuel García Castellón and his reinforcement, judge Joaquín Gadea, for alleged crimes of prevarication, revelation of secrets and omission to pursue criminal conduct in an alleged ‘lawfare’ case after reopening the investigation against the party for alleged illegal financing.
The ‘purple’ formation had filed the complaint against the head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 6 and his reinforcement judge for having reopened the investigation that was being carried out against him and his leaders for alleged crimes of party financing, money laundering and tax crime, after having taken a statement from the former head of Venezuelan Intelligence Hugo ‘El Pollo’ Carvajal, claimed by the United States.
The magistrates have agreed to reject the complaint as they did not see any evidence of a crime in the actions of the two judges of the National Court.
Regarding the information provided by Carvajal, the Supreme Court has assured that the events were related to the purpose of the investigation that had been carried out in the court for crimes of illegal financing of political parties, tax crime and money laundering, which is why Given this new information, the judge “was obliged to investigate and verify the veracity of the information transmitted to him.”
For the Chamber, the declaration of secrecy of the summary with which the Public Prosecutor’s Office was in agreement does not seem “unjustified at that time”, and adds that for Podemos this did not generate defenselessness.
“It was not only about consulting official or private databases outside the reach of those investigated, but about investigating a certain activity in which authorities, officials and nationals of a foreign country could be involved, and through which it was intended to confirm certain indications of financing committed through a diplomatic pouch and with the delivery of money in briefcases to a Spanish citizen for transfer to our country,” the Chamber delves into its reasoning.
In its order, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, chaired by Judge Manuel Marchena and with a presentation by Judge Carmen Lamela, recalls that the crime of judicial prevarication “requires (…) the awareness of dictating a resolution with complete departure from the principle of legality and from the usual and admissible interpretations of law.”
And it adds that there must also be a “deliberate intention to violate justice”, which is why, they add, “from a simple reading of the contested resolutions and those issued by the Criminal Chamber of the National Court, it is clear that said subjective element is not present”.
Regarding the crime of revealing secrets that Podemos attributed to the investigators of the case, the Supreme Court magistrates point out that “it is evident that there were leaks from the investigation that were made public through certain media, but not even the complainant attributes them clearly and definitively to the defendants, nor does there appear any indication that this was the case.”
“The defendants were not the only people who had access to the information contained in the procedure, nor does there appear to be any interest on their part that such leaks would occur. Nor is any omission of a certain activity that would have prevented the leaks attributed to them,” explains the car.
PODEMOS DID NOT REPORT LEAKS
Regarding the crime of omission of the duty to prosecute crimes that the ‘purples’ attributed to García Castellón and Gadea, the Chamber recalls that it is “a crime of pure omission in which the active subject is the authority or public official who has “among its legal powers is to promote the prosecution of crimes and those responsible.”
The speaker explains that in this case “the objective jurisdiction to pursue these leaks did not correspond to the defendants, but to the Court that was competent due to the matter and the territory.”
Furthermore, the order adds that “the obligation to report the perpetration of any crime corresponds not only to those who, by reason of their position, profession or job, have knowledge of the crime (art. 262 LECrim), but also to any person who witnesses its perpetration. (art. 259 LECrim)”.
“And it is evident that neither the Prosecutor’s Office nor the complainant reported leaks, which were not clear whether they came from the summary, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case and the original source of the information,” he explains.
THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, IN FAVOR OF THE ARCHIVE
The decision of the Supreme Court is in line with the criteria of the Prosecutor’s Office, which has assured that the decision that the judge adopted in this case to reopen the proceedings “is perfectly legal” and, furthermore, “correct from the point of view of the obligations.” of the investigating judge established by the Law of Criminal Procedure (LECrim) and without any violation of either the rules of jurisdiction or the right to the ordinary judge predetermined by the law”.
“There is no ‘unjust resolution’ here, but rather a due decision covered by the need to verify information that came from a person in a position – presumably – to provide evidence of the crimes that were alleged to have been committed,” said the prosecutor Salvador Viada in the writing to which Europa Press has had access.
The Prosecutor’s Office also does not consider that the necessary requirements are met to consider that, with regard to the declaration of secrecy, there has been prevaricative action on the part of the investigating judges who made that decision.
THE COMPLAINT OF PODEMOS
At a press conference, the state co-spokesperson of the party, Pablo Fernández, assured that the actions of both judges were a “paradigmatic” and “palmary” case of ‘lawfare’, operating outside the rules that regulate judicial action with a “prospective” investigation whose “sole objective” was to “reputationally harm” Podemos. He accused both magistrates of perpetrating “genuine infamy” and “absolute shame” in their judicial performance.
In the complaint, according to the purple co-spokesperson, alluded to the leaking of each of the milestones of that investigation with a view to harming his political organization, until at the request of the Third Section of the Criminal Chamber of the National Court The archiving of the proceedings was ordered.
The Prosecutor’s Office has stressed that although “it is undoubted that the data that was incorporated into the case was the subject of journalistic news” there is “no” evidence that the judges have violated the confidentiality of the case. “This is a reckless statement,” said the prosecutor.
