Section 23 of the Provincial Court of Madrid has rejected the appeal filed by the defense of Begoña Gómez, wife of the President of the Government, against the appointment for September 30 of the deliberation and decision of a previous appeal referring to the investigation of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado.
The magistrate is investigating Gómez for alleged crimes of influence peddling and commercial corruption due to the business activities he has carried out in recent years.
On July 27, Gómez’s defense requested the Court not to delay until September 30 the resolution of the appeal he filed on July 8, in which he denounces that Peinado is filing a “general complaint” against the wife of the President of the Government and that she has not determined, as required by law to guarantee the right of defense, the object of the procedure ordered by Judge Juan Carlos Peinado.
Lawyer Antonio Camacho said that during all this time, “damage that is impossible to repair” was being caused to the person being investigated, given the “serious violations” of the right to defence which, in his opinion, occur “not only with respect to my client but also with respect to all persons investigated in the context of these proceedings, given the erratic procedural and material drift that it is taking”.
“The most serious thing,” he said, “is the “mutant” object of the procedure. Although on July 1 the judge determined that the investigation was limited to the facts reported in the initial complaint filed by the Hands Cleans civil servants’ union, he then “extended the investigation without specifying, or specifying in a contradictory manner, the subject matter” of the procedure and without proceeding to a rigorous delimitation of its subject matter.”
“Transfer the resolution of the appeal filed by this
left almost three months after its deposit, the only thing that will allow it is that diabolical investigation that violates the most essential principles of law “The defense continues,” the defender said.
In a brief resolution, Section 23 explains that the filing of the appeal against Peinado’s instruction “followed the ordinary order officeaccording to the agenda of this Court, since it is not
“It’s a question of preferred resolution.”
He added that the violations of the right to defence which are denounced “go beyond the object of the appeal” against the accusation.
