The fourth section of the Provincial Court of Valencia decided maintain provisional release to the former president of the Generalitat Valenciana and former minister of the PP Eduardo Zaplanaconvicted of ITV plot in fallow casenot liking the risk of escaping.
Zaplana was sentenced to 10 years and five months in prison for him fallow casein a sentence subject to appeal before the Supreme Court. The anti-corruption prosecution, however, requested an overview to assess his entry into prison until the High Court rules.
The court convened this hearing last Thursday after the anti-corruption prosecution, once Erial’s sentence was pronounced, which is not final and can be appealed to the Supreme Court, requested the Zaplana’s immediate entry into prison, aware of the risk of escape.
His defense objected, claiming that this possibility did not exist due to his illness and his family roots: “There is not even the slightest hint of risk. “He has his house, his family, his livelihood, the pension which is deposited in an account, he has everything in Spain,” he said.
For his part, Zaplana spoke and declared that he had no intention of fleeing the country: “I am not in the mood to flee,” he stressed. Furthermore, he stressed that if Tabares – convicted in Ivex Case– had legal proceedings, precisely because the Generalitat over which he presided filed a complaint.
The court agreed to release Zaplana temporarily without bail with the imposition of certain precautionary measures such as the withdrawal of the passport, the ban on leaving the national territory and the monthly appearance in court, as reported by the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community (TSJCV).
The Court adopted this decision because it does not appreciate the risk of flight since, until now, the former president has not committed any act aimed at evading the action of Justice, he has appeared at all trial hearings and answered all calls. .judicial.
serious crimes
The representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office explained during the court hearing that Zaplana’s procedural situation had changed after the conviction, which recognizes that “these are serious crimes, associated with political corruption in the exercise of public functions“.
“The risk of flight increases not only because of the sentence handed down, which constitutes a motivation to evade justice, but also because of their access to economic means,” he warned.
In this sense, he emphasized that, according to the judgment, it was “proven” that Zaplana “has access to products and financial assets abroad that it has not made available to the Spanish authorities” .
Furthermore, he recalled that the former general director of the Valencian Export Institute (IVEX), Jose Maria Tabareswho was a person “under the orders” of Zaplana, fled to Japana country in which there is no extradition agreement with Spain.
Likewise, he rejected the medical report established by the court’s forensic experts in 2019, presented by the defense to oppose this precautionary measure. “Fortunately, Zaplana attended the trial, we understand that his health problem does not pose any risk and that he has developed a completely normal life,” he replied.
For all this, he asked to be placed in provisional prison because Zaplana, “thanks to his economic conditions, can escape the action of Justice and continue his medical treatment in first world countries, and given the sentence of ten years which was pronounced when he was given the possibility of fleeing, it must be measured.”
On the other hand, Zaplana’s lawyer stressed that his client is “innocent” until there is a final sentence and that the presumption of innocence must be respected and stressed in this regard that he does not comply with the “legitimate purposes” established by law to accept this precautionary measure.
Thus, he emphasized that during all this time, from the start of the trial until his appearance at the hearing, he did not flee, which shows that “he does not intend to escape to justice”, nor the possibility of hiding evidence. In addition, he stressed that it was unconstitutional to request his admission due to social alarm and pointed out that the conviction for the crimes, although of “certain seriousness”, since it is not firm, could result in lesser penalties.
