The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid rejected the complaint filed by journalist Máximo Pradera against judge Juan Carlos Peinado for alleged offense of revealing procedural documents declared secret and offense of revealing secrets privately by a public official as part of his investigation against Begoña Gómez.
The judges made the decision complies with the criteria of the prosecutionwho opposed the admission of the complaint, considering that there is no indication that a crime was committed by the president of the Court of Instruction Number 41 of Madrid.
Pradera disgraced the fact that Judge Peinado’s decision to investigate the wife of the President of the Government for alleged crimes of influence peddling and commercial corruption was made known to the media, through the office press release of the TSJ of Madrid, as well as by the press release. investigative secrecy. He criticized, in turn, the fact that information on the confessions of appearance and summons had been disclosed.
The TSJ concluded that Judicial resolutions issued do not violate procedural secrecybut they allowed the prosecution, the defense and the rest of the prosecution to have knowledge of the procedure “in order to preserve the principle of equality of arms”.
“In short, since the opening of the trial, in reality the agreed secrecy of the proceedings is fundamentally partial, placing the defense on an equal footing and participating in it like the public prosecutor,” he said.
Right to information
Furthermore, the magistrates considered that the content of Actions declared secret were “limited” which is indicated in the information note of April 24 received by the press. “It only provides information on the initiation of the procedure, the indicated offenses that gave rise to it, the person being investigated, the person filing the complaint and the secrecy of the procedure,” they said. they emphasized.
For the court, “the simple fact of communicating that a criminal procedure is being followed without the aforementioned data would leave the public nature of the procedure empty, especially when tensions with the constitutionally recognized right to information“.
Thus, he insisted that “in no case” is the “substantial content” of the actions directed by Judge Peinado transferred, which “does not constitute” a revelation of secrets allowing one to know the outcome of the investigation.
Previous journalistic investigations
In this sense, the magistrates emphasized that “the very existence of the process is public, otherwise we would return, it must be added, to times gone by when the model of investigation was the inquisitorial”.
However, the TSJ recalled that “before” Judge Peinado began investigating Begoña Gómez, “various journalistic media were investigating certain activities carried out, apparently, by the person under investigation.”
Finally, the court emphasized that “there is no harm” to the investigation nor to Begoña Gómez herself, since “given the notoriety of her civil status, she must bear the consequences of the exercise of freedom of information.
