A procedural error in the district court Juan Carlos Peinado forced the Provincial Court of Madrid to postpone the decision on the trial against Begoña Gomez.
The Court had planned to meet this Monday to resolve two appeals: one that requests the file of the case, filed by Gómez’s lawyer, and another in which the prosecutor requests the determination of the subject of the case. ‘investigation.
The judges of the Court received the second appeal, which the defense acceded to, but not the first. And faced with this processing failure, Article 23 chose to suspend its deliberations until the Court clarifies the error and sends the missing documents.
This type of procedural error is unfortunately quite common in the administration of justice.who must deal with a constant transfer of documents and an accumulation of procedures which sometimes lead to the misplacement of some of them.
The problem is that, what for any other instruction would be received as what it appears to be, a simple failure in processing the documents in which the wife of the President of the Government is under investigation, can encourage all kinds of speculation.
It is obvious that the Begoña case has unprecedented public importancein addition to being an issue on which media attention constantly weighs and in which different actors have exploited certain erratic movements of the instructor to impose a political reading.
This new delay is therefore likely to give rise to conspiracy theories: because the postponement would favor a defense which can foresee that it will not be able to initiate the procedure until the Court attempts to delay the re-examination of the investigation and thus gaining another month to investigate Gómez.
Given that this is a case with such repercussions, all those responsible for the supply chain had to exercise extreme caution in sending documents from the Courts of Plaza Castilla to the Provincial Court . If, moreover, the hearing had been scheduled almost three months ago, it is unacceptable that documents were missing at the time of the hearing.
It is now up to the Court to respond diligently to its investigation to clarify what error prevented the appeal from being resolved, to correct it as quickly as possible and to clarify responsibilities, if any. The Begoña case can no longer afford blunders.
