Begoña Gómez’s defense has again presented an appeal to Judge Juan Carlos Peinado to reconsider the orders issued last week in which he demanded documents from the sponsors of the chair, the Complutense University of Madrid, and cited the University of Madrid as a witness. head of human resources of the Business Institute. He considers the procedure impertinent and guided by “interested speculations.”
“If the facts that appear to be the subject of an investigation have already been dismissed by the Provincial Court (higher hierarchy of the Court of Instruction) and by the two reports of the UCO of the Civil Guard (whose objectivity is incontestable), it is not possible to accept the agreed statement of the witness or to demand documents This is necessary, a procedure that has nothing to do with the purpose of this procedure, since we are dealing with mere interested speculations that have motives unrelated to the case, and which should not be admitted by the Court,” says the appeal, which ABC has granted.
Lawyer Antonio Camacho thus returns to the position expressed in previous appeals and also raised on appeal before the Provincial Court of Madrid, which On September 30, he will deliberate regarding his request to archive a case that he describes as “prospective” because he assures that the object of the investigation was not defined, but rather grew without further delay, violating the fundamental right to a process with all guarantees.
If in these allegations he refuted what had been ordered until July, Gómez was summoned to testify as being under investigation, now he focuses on the decisions that have relaunched the trial after a series of testimonies in which they have become relevant. appearances by the heads of the LaCaixa Foundation and Reale Seguros who sponsored the extraordinary chair of Begoña Gómez at the Complutense, and the senior official of the Barrabés Group who taught in one of their degrees.
All this, after the Provincial Court ruled in May that the indications of the Manos Cleanas complaint that gave rise to the case were found exclusively in certain public contracts awarded to the Barrabés Group and then taken over by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. In defense of the wife of the President of the Government, “if there is no object of investigation, it is not possible for the investigator to accept the practice of any procedure.”
“Lack of motivation”
He has thus challenged all those carried out since, focusing on “the indeterminacy of the object of the present investigation and the lack of motivation”, in this case in the summons of the witness of the Instituto de Empresa, “as useful and relevant evidence”. “What cannot be said is that the investigating body can investigate any fact without submitting to a prior perimeter of what constitutes the object of the procedure”, he reasons.
He insists that “the law establishes an investigation in which the investigator is free to decide what investigative procedures are to be carried out, but This only allows you to accept these procedures to the extent that they have a relationship or entity to investigate the facts that are the subject of the proceedings, and not others. According to him, anything that goes beyond the initial contracts whose investigation was approved by the Provincial Court should be subject to a veto.
However, these days, the same Provincial Court has validated another extension of the trial that Judge Juan Carlos Peinado is pursuing by giving the green light to accept a complaint from HazteOír regarding a software that, created during the extraordinary presidency, ended up being registered under the name of Begoña Gómez in the Trademark and Patent Office. The Prosecutor’s Office opposed this initiative, coming from another court, being included in the file. The magistrates rejected his position and opened the door to an investigation into this case, since they see a connection with the facts that are already being investigated.
