Her defense believes that “she is being revictimized” and obtaining a “response from the system totally contrary to her protection”
The former Podemos adviser Dina Bousselham has asked the Criminal Chamber of the National Court (AN) to revoke the decision of Judge Manuel García Castellón to send the matter to the Madrid courts, which would have jurisdiction, to investigate if he committed false testimony in the separate piece where the path that his phone card had since the cell phone was stolen in 2015 until his information appeared published is investigated.
In a letter, presented this Monday and to which Europa Press has had access, Bousselham asks to nullify the order issued by the head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 6 on September 1, where he asked the Madrid courts to investigate whether The former ‘purple’ adviser and her ex-husband, Ricardo Sa Ferreira, committed false testimony when they testified as witnesses in this separate piece of the ‘Villarejo case’, number 10.
Bousselham’s lawyer recalls that the Criminal Chamber agreed on September 8 to reopen the investigation of ‘Dina’ to investigate whether the former police leadership was involved in any way in the theft of the mobile phone, by admitting two appeals from the former adviser and his former boss, the former Vice President of the Government and former leader of Podemos Pablo Iglesias.
“This party understands that it is manifestly inadmissible to continue with the deduction of testimonies against the victims for alleged crimes that, not only happen to have not been committed -since it is clear that all the signs of criminality point to the accused-, but also It is even more evident that the procedural requirement is not met in any way (…) since the resumption of this instruction has been agreed,” he maintains.
García Castellón considers that it should be investigated whether Bousselham committed an alleged crime of perjury due to the different versions he offered to the instructor about the state in which the mini SD had arrived when Iglesias returned it to him, several months after he got it from the hands of journalists.
The judge adopted this decision against the criteria of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, which indicated that although “vagueness and contradictions are evident” in the versions of Bousselham and Sa Ferreira “it cannot be considered that this has in any way altered the result” of the investigation.
In addition to the aforementioned brief, Dina’s defense filed an appeal last Friday trying to overturn the magistrate’s decision. In it, her representation assures that the former ‘dwelling’ adviser “is clearly being revictimized, obtaining a response from the system that is totally contrary to her protection.”
And this is so, they indicate, because it has been “on the one hand affected by the crimes investigated by the instructor against the defendants and at the same time affected by the decisions of the instructor” and that, they add, “they harm their image and prestige” . “Specifically in this case with the agreement to deduct from testimonies from the investigating court, for future acts that he has not yet committed and that would presumably constitute a crime,” he criticizes.
“AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW”
In it, the lawyer recalls that the Prosecutor’s Office itself is contrary to the judge’s request, “because, in addition to the fact that the course of the investigation has not been altered, it is not considered appropriate to proceed for a crime of perjury against the aforementioned witnesses, since both witnesses will foreseeably testify in the oral trial about the same facts”.
His lawyer understands that this movement by the magistrate “is contrary not only to the legal system but to the rule of law and the proper functioning of the institutions and even to the image of citizens regarding Justice, affecting the principle of impartiality and equality”.
In his opinion, all this would not happen “if Dina were not the former adviser to the former vice president of the government” Pablo Iglesias. “She would not be subjected to the deduction of testimonies for non-existent crimes without any evidence and without peripheral elements that can corroborate anything,” reproaches her defense.
“PRESSURE” IN THE FACE OF THE TRIAL
In this line, Bousselham’s representation understands that this new derivative “only serves to feed the media without the deduced testimonies being likely to prosper, given that the legal requirements for the prosecution of crimes are not met. and/or there is not even evidence of proof”.
“When the trial where the alleged crime was to be committed has not even been held, the instructor imagining a future event (the content of the statements in court that my client and her ex-husband will give) deduces testimony against the victim and one of the witnesses , which clearly violates the Statute of the Victim”, continues the appeal.
Thus, her lawyer criticizes that the judge submits Bousselham “and her ex-husband to pressure that can destabilize her state of mind in the face of the trial, seeing herself exposed again in the media with a resolution that “pulverizes the rights of the victim and totally empties of content the rights that assist her as an injured party”.
