The shame of Madrid justice in Sánchez for the complaint against Judge Peinado: “The recourse to the public prosecutor’s office is extravagant”

The resolution of the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid with which it agreed to reject the complaint for alleged prevarication of the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, against the judge Juan Carlos Peinado who is investigating his wife, Begoña Gómez, for having summoned him as a witness in the case and having recorded his statement, represents a hard blow both for him and for the public prosecutor’s office, through which he urged the Madrid justice system to investigate the magistrate for alleged prevarication. unanimously and with a concurring vote from Judge Jesús María Santos Vijande, who asks whether Sánchez should not be fined for procedural bad faith, they severely reproach the head of government and the state legal services for the complaint filed against investigating judge Begoña Gómez. for alleged crimes of influence peddling and commercial corruption. They use resounding arguments, such as the following: – “Considering the summoning of its president as a witness in a criminal case as an unnecessary attack on the actions of the government lacks the most basic justification.” This is not the first time this happens in our democratic history”, they say, in a veiled allusion to the criticism that there was at the time, from the Popular Party, about the summoning of Mariano Rajoy in 2017 as a witness . in the trial of the Gürtel case, the first time that this has happened in a democracy – “The complaint lacks sufficient developments, even if only indicatively, on the damage that was inflicted on the. institution of government that his citation is made in accordance with one of the forms provided for by law, since the declaration form is not intended to know the facts known because of the said status of President, but rather as a person. husband of the person indicted. News Begoña Gómez Standard of the case Yes The judge refuses to veto the video of Pedro Sánchez’s statement, as requested by the prosecutor Isabel Vega, provides that the accusations and the defense have access to a copy because of silence of the president they can also draw “conclusions” – “Given that the questions which were going to be asked are not known, as recognized by the complaint document itself”, there is reason to attribute to the accused a motive fallacious and prevaricatory – questioning him on facts known in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Government – remains, once again, in the realm of speculation. – “Such procrastinating intention must be rejected from the moment the defendant’s decision is consistent with normal judicial practice, since the provision contained in article 743 of the LECrim required the recording of the hearing. trial sessions , to record other court proceedings in a medium suitable for recording, to the extent that the necessary technology is available – “Recording a witness statement is a widespread practice. In itself, this does not violate the rights of the party concerned, whether witness or investigated, it is probably, on the contrary, an additional guarantee of the regularity with which said action was carried out.” – “It is true that the plaintiff is not a party, for the condition that was called to the trial (witness), but there is no doubt that the President of the Government has two institutions capable of guaranteeing the legitimate interests of the institution of which he is the head: the public prosecutor and the public prosecutor – the main guarantor of the legality and the continuation of criminal activities, as provided for in articles 1 and 3 of its organic statute – therefore the recourse to the public prosecutor to formulate a complaint such as the present is extravagant.” – “The Court cannot help but think, taking into account the speculative nature on which the complaint is based and the damage it reveals, that it is solely due to the attempt to distort the lawful aim implicated by the type of crime.” of which the accused is accused: of pursuing inappropriate conduct on the part of a person who exercises the role of judge to transfer in an attempt, in the words of the complaint document, “to distance from the specific exercise of a representative of this power”. [judicial] “with regard to the highest representative of another of the powers of the State, namely the Executive”, disguised in the justification he uses.”

Source