The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Pablo Iglesias and Podemos against the judgment of the Provincial Court of Madrid which rejected that the journalist and director of OKDIARIO, Edward Indawould have violated his honor by declaring that the purple formation was an antidemocratic party financed with money from the governments of Venezuela and Iran.
Pablo Iglesias and Podemos filed a lawsuit for the protection of the right to honor against Eduardo Inda and OKDIARIO’s publishing house, Dos Mil Palabras, for the statements made by the journalist in a television program broadcast on 12 April 2021, in which he participated. as a talk show host. Inda said that “one day the media will have to reflect on what has been in the last seven years the constant promotion of this character (Pablo Iglesias), of his party (Podemos), when it is about ‘an anti-democratic party, a party financed by two dictatorships, that of Venezuela which assassinates dissidents and people who do not agree with them financed by the Iranian dictatorship, which hangs homosexuals by the; being gay and stoning women“.
The court indicates that on the same day, Eduardo Inda published in OKDIARIO an article and a video in which he reiterated these accusations that he had made against the secretary general of Podemos and other leaders of said party.
The Supreme Court analyzes whether the journalist’s statements have a sufficient factual basis to legitimize the exercise of his freedom of expression and concludes that the assessment is correct this renders the contested decision which considers that the plaintiffs’ right to honor was not violated.
In this regard, the Chamber emphasizes: “Such events would be the receipt of funds from Venezuela by the foundation which in the trial itself is described as ‘precursor’ of the political party Podemos and by certain very important people within said party and of the political movement from which it arose, as well as the financing by Iran recognized by Mr. Iglesias himself during a conference, during which he declared that it was necessary to “overcome” these contradictions.
“That this money was received as direct funding or payment for services or television programs; that Podemos received it directly or that, before the creation of said party, it was done by the foundation which served as its precursor and people of great importance in the party’s precursor political movement and later in the party itself; or that the receipt of said funds was lawful, These are questions which do not deprive the expressions of the accused of a sufficient factual basis to legitimize the exercise of their freedom of expression.taking into account the context and the purpose for which they were carried out: the negation of the democratic character of the Podemos party and its leader Mr. Iglesias due to its economic links with Venezuela and Iran, described by the accused as two dictatorships who violated human rights”, underline the magistrates.
Payments to the Grenadines
Pablo Iglesias lost all the cases against OKDIARIO and its director, Eduardo Inda. The first claim came after this newspaper revealed, in May 2016, that the Venezuelan drug dictatorship paid $272,325 to the former leader of Podemos on an account in his name with the Euro Pacific bank in the tax haven of the Grenadine Islands. The information from OKDIARIO was “truthful, verified in police sources, far from being a simple invention, of general interest and adjusted to the doctrine of the Supreme Court. This is how strongly the president of the Court of First Instance number 84 of Madrid expressed herself in the judgment that rejected the lawsuit of the then general secretary of Podemos against this newspaper because she did not understand that her right to honor had been violated. The judge ordered Iglesias to pay the costs of the legal proceedings.
Iglesias’ lawyers have decided to appeal the sentence to the Madrid Provincial Court, representing a new defeat for the former vice-president of the government. The magistrates of the eighth section of the Provincial Civil Court of Madrid indicated that the journalists and the director of OKDIARIO “They acted scrupulously in the exercise of the right to freedom of information and expression”. And they concluded that information about Iglesias’ profits from the Venezuelan regime’s coffers They are truthful.
The exclusivity of caseplón
Iglesias and his partner, Irene Montero, also filed a complaint against OKDIARIO and Eduardo Inda for revealing that they had purchased a residence worth more than 600,000 euros in La Navata (Galapagar). The Podemita couple accuses this newspaper of “coercion, harassment and stalking” and crashed again in court. The Court of First Instance number 4 of Collado Villalba filed a complaint after realizing that the crimes denounced by the plaintiffs had not been committed. The judge explained that “after having examined the documentation provided, consisting mainly of published publications, and having taken the essential steps to verify the facts which are the subject of the complaint, the conduct of the accused lacks sufficient basis to fit within the framework of the described types of criminals, since the publications produced are limited to making known a relevant fact worthy of interest, taking into account the condition of people who exercise a profession of public importance like the plaintiffs, taking into account their connection with the political party in which they are active. The Galapagar couple appealed the decision to the Provincial Court of Madrid, which ratified the dismissal.
“False” harassment
OKDIARIO’s last victory over the couple residing in Galapagar dates back to 2022. Criminal Court No. 30 of Madrid acquitted a journalist from the newspaper denounced by the former vice-president of the government and former Minister of Equality. for investigating whether they took their children to an illegal daycare. The judge understood that “The actions of the accused did not constitute a crime, since neither the acts themselves nor the manner in which they were carried outneither their number nor the period during which they were carried out allows us to consider the existence of harassment, even if they gave rise to very relevant concerns both among the caregiver and the parents of the minors.
